You Can’t be Anti-theist and Support Science? a Debate with ADAM FRIENDED

I am an anti-theist, not just an Atheist?

“Damien, you cannot claim to be an anti-theist and also claim to support science.” – Challenger 

You Can’t be Anti-theist and Support Science? a Debate with ADAM FRIENDED (VIDEO) 

–ADAM FRIENDED on YouTube

He was a troll who was slandering me as If I was a fool and called me out on Twitter. I told him to do a video and see who was right, it was a debate.

This is a False Dilemma fallacy 

(also known as: all-or-nothing fallacy, false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization) ref 

Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes.  False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices.  Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist. ref

He used many Straw Man Fallacies which really was irritating me. 

“A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man.” The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.” ref 

Definition and Examples of the Straw Man Fallacy 

“The straw man is a fallacy in which an opponent’s argument is overstated or misrepresented in order to be more easily attacked or refuted. The technique often takes quotes out of context or, more often, incorrectly paraphrases or summarizes an opponent’s position. Then after “defeating” the position, the attacker claims to have beaten the real thing. Although the term straw man is a recent coinage, the concept is ancient. In the “Topics,” Aristotle acknowledges “that in argument it would be inappropriate to interpret as someone’s position an opinion that he did not express or is not committed to, in virtue of what he said” (Douglas Walton, “Methods of Argumentation”). The name of the fallacy represents the idea that although a straw man may look like a human, it won’t put up any resistance in a fight.” ref 

“Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” ref

Two Completely Different Responses to the Same Debate

1. Damien, that debate was very good, well done! You weren’t rude, a large part of debates is framing arguments, and calling out logical fallacies. Interrupting one another is not rude in debates because it helps prevent being gish galloped or straw-manned. It didn’t ever get out of hand, there wasn’t any ad hominem that I noticed. Maybe they don’t understand the concept of civil debates. There were plenty of points for Adam to interject without interruption that he never challenged your arguments. Seemed pretty fair and civil to me. I would say you did a great job presenting your stance and defending it. Most the other stuff he either agreed with you, or conceded. You were literally explaining how debates work to him, you made the 3 claims in regards to why you believe religions are bad and he literally didn’t attempt to challenge any of them.

2. Waste of time. Damien lacks, refinement, and common courtesy. His conduct was self-centered and he only wanted to hear himself speak. He cut Adam off every time he started to started to speak; when asking or answering a question. Damien wouldn’t even let Adam finish a question, without knocking him or his beliefs. Damien showed no respect for his guest. You get the respect you give. I like smart people, which Damien is, but I will not waste my time again. I now want to know more about Adam Friended; not Damien. Adam seems very intelligent, polite, and thoughtful. I suffered through the whole video. Damien 1 / Adam 9.

Key components of argumentation

• “Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
• Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
• Establishing the “burden of proof” – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance.
• For the one carrying the “burden of proof”, the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent’s acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
• In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.” ref

Another Response to My Debate:

“Wow, I wish I had half of your calm and composer, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to you, unfortunately I can become angry in such a situation, big weakness, will definitely listen to this debate many more times in the future and hope somehow to curb my (passionate way) its always a pleasure following you wish you love and happiness for many years to come” ♥️

I am a Proud Anti-theist 

I am an anti-theist, as I am for peace and freedom thus any claimed god that can at will remove my human rights to freedom requires my loyal opposition regardless if a myth or somehow real. And any god that creates hell or threatens harm to humans is a moral monster that also must rightly be opposition regardless if a myth or somehow real. And god that can do good and does not is deeply unethical and requires my loyal opposition regardless if a myth or somehow real. Any god that created this world with so much harm is deeply evil or thoughtless and thus as before requires my loyal opposition regardless if a myth or somehow real. And, therefore, any theistic religion that promotes such a god deserves as much distain as the evil god they promote as well.   

God: “anti-humanism thinking”

God thinking is a superstitiously transmitted disease, that usually is accompanied with some kind of antihumanism thinking. Relatively all gods, in general, are said to have the will and power over humans.

Likewise, such god claims often are attributed to be the ones who decide morality thus remove the true-morality nature in humans that actually assist us in morality. So, adding a god is to welcome antihumanism burdens, because god concepts are often an expression.

This is especially so when any so-called god somethingism are said to make things like hells is an antihumanism thinking. A general humanism thinking to me is that everyone owns themselves, not some god and everyone is equal. Such humanism thinking that to me, requires a shunning of coercion force that removes a human’s rights.

Or involves the subjugation of oppression and threats for things like requiring belief or demanding faith in some other unjustified abstraction from others. Therefore, humanism thinking is not open to being in such beliefs, position or situations that violate free expression of one’s human rights.

One’s human rights are not just relinquished because some people believed right or their removal is at the whims of some claimed god (human rights removing/limiting/controlling = ANTIHUMANISM).

Humanism to me, summed up as, humans solving human problems through human means. Thus, humanism thinking involves striving to do good without gods, and not welcoming the human rights removing/limiting/controlling, even if the myths could somehow come to be true.  

I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valueized 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. 

My anti-theism, means I am against Theism, thus against the concept of gods, real or not, and against the religious support for Theism. Generally, it involves seeing Theism as harmful in one way or another and is against Theism for this reason. I see the concept of gods as commonly very anti-humanism.

God’s people most often worship are claimed to be able to willfully remove humanity’s right to freedom as if you don’t do as the tyrant-god likes you are threatened in some way or another. It is not different than in the concept that living in a country where the Human is running it is a Typical Tyrant. I also see it as removing the rationale to healthy self-mastery and self-freedom.

If you have someone in government do as gods are claiming most people would be opposed to it but call it a god and people are magically willing mental slaves. Though this is largely because of indoctrination either as a child or because it is common in the culture. That fact is proven by how the Theism of choice is more a matter of geography not the quality of the god claim product.

Three things I hate are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.”

• I Hate Religion Just as I Hate all Pseudoscience 
• Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a Hammer in a 400 Million Year Old Rock 
• Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
• Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.
• Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians
• The Pseudohistoric and Pseudoscientific claims about “Bakoni Ruins” of South Africa

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.

Here are my thoughts on Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality:

+Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.

+Ethics (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behavior that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making.

Axiology, Naturalism, Realism, and Moral Theory Ideas

Real Morality is referring to “ethics” (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality) as opposed to +Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality).

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

I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools for understanding motivation and behavior such as the biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) resulting in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. 

Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simply as the golden rule… 

True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.

Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral.

The god justified immoral into moral is some of the most common pseudo morality though political and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.

To me, true morality is not starting with an us or me focused morality as morality is a social interaction exchange thus it must be other focused. “treating others as they should be treated” To me, I see everyone as owning themselves all equal in this right as humans. Moreover, to me morality is behavioral and a social property, there is no immoral thing one can do to themselves as one cannot violate themselves or their own consent as they choose their own actions. Thus, to me, all morality is about others and our interactions with them and them with us. So, morality arises in a social context with all things not that all things have the same moral weight. Therefore, moral relationships with life outside humans have a different moral weight or value. So, the golden rule? No thanks, I want real morality not reverse-selfishness driven morality.

Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

Harm is often a violation of trust and a violation of expected trust makes bad things even worse like if I told you a child was killed, you would feel it was terrible but if I further told you it was the child’s doctor that murdered the child out of anger. You would be more angered as doctors are expected to care for people not harm them. And if you think that is bad what if I further told you the doctor who killed the child was her mother would you hold her even mone in contempt as mothers also are expected to care and not kill children, so a violation of trust is terrible and even makes things worse. Therefore, we can see why people that hold places of trust should never abuse them, and that we should hold them accountable if they do violate such trust by harming others. Morality first, that is morality should be at the forefront in all I do. 

I hope I am always strong enough to put my morality at the forefront in all I do, so much so, that it is obvious in the ways I think and behave. To better grasp, a naturalistic morality one should see the perspective of how there is a self-regulatory effect on the self-evaluative moral emotions, such as shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. one should conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion. 

Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

 “Sometimes justice has to outweigh care and sometimes care has to outweigh justice.”

And one may ask or question how do you discern the appropriate morality course of action between what is ethically right? To me, it takes Axiology (i.e. value consciousness: value judgment analysis of ethical appropriateness do to assess the value involved). And True Morality quickly summed up to me is largely the expression of axiological value judgments or assessments carried into an appropriate valueized action.

Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings is because we are Dignity-beings

*Axiological Dignity Being Theory*

Axiological Dignity: “Value Consciousness vs Value-Blindness”

My Axiological Dignity Being Theory: An “Axiological assessment of human beings” shows with an axiological awareness a logic of values is clear which takes as its basic premise that “all persons always deserve positive regard.” – Progressive Logic by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. 

And the reason why we should care is that we are Dignity Beings.

“Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict 

I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies. Kindness beats prayers every time, even if you think prayer works, you know kindness works. Think otherwise, do both without telling people and see which one they notice. Aspire to master the heavens but don’t forget about the ones in need still here on earth. You can be kind and never love but you cannot love and never be kind. Therefore, it is this generosity of humanity, we need the most of. So, if you can be kind, as in the end some of the best we can be to others is to exchange kindness. For too long now we have allowed the dark shadow of hate to cloud our minds, while we wait in silence as if pondering if there is a need to commiserate. For too long little has been done and we too often have been part of this dark clouded shame of hate. Simply, so many humans now but sadly one is still left asking, where is the humanity?

MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “justice perspective”):

To feel a kind of morality “anxiety” (ethical apprehension to potentially cause harm) about behaviors and their outcomes empathy (I feel you) or sympathy (I feel for you) about something moral that may be done, is being done, or that has been done, thus feeling of distress, apprehension or alarm caused by value-driven emotional intelligence concern; moral/ethical anxiety to the possibility; chance (to do something as a moral thinker and an ethical actor) or dread; respect (to take the sensitivity of a personal moral choice that leads one to choose an ethical behavior(s) and grasping the moral weight of the actions involved and potential outcomes this engagement can or will likely create (using data from learning whether theoretical or practical to lessen the effect of an unpleasant choice as much as posable (morality development/awareness/goals/persuasion). 

“Moral Anxiety, improves us, while Social Anxiety kills. Some anxieties are indicators of healthy curiosity and strong moral fiber, while others are a source of severe stress. Knowing which is which can help you to navigate your personal, professional, and intellectual life more effectively.” Ref 

Moral fear thus is a kind of morality “anxiety” that motivates a fascinating aspect of humanity, which is that we hold ourselves to high moral standards. With our values and emotional intelligence and moral development, we gain a developed prosocial persuasion thus “tend to self-impose rules on ourselves to protect society from the short-term temptations that might cause us to do things that would have a negative impact in the long-run.  For example, we might be tempted to harm a person who bothers us, but a society in which everyone gave in to the temptation to hurt those who made us angry would quickly devolve into chaos. And once we accept that emotion plays some role in complex decisions, it is important to figure out which emotions are influencing different kinds of choices. Therefore, when we make these moral judgments to an extent we are somewhat driven by our ability to reason about the consequences of the actions or are  influenced by their emotions to or about the outcomes of the consequences of the actions.” ref 

*ps. MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “consequentialist ethics/utilitarian ethics”) is roughly referring to the fight-or-flight response, also known as the acute stress response, which refers to a physiological reaction that occurs in the presence of something that is terrifying, either mentally or physically. The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. An evolutionary psychology explanation is that early animals had to react to threatening stimuli quickly and did not have time to psychologically and physically prepare themselves. The fight or flight response provided them with the mechanisms to rapidly respond to threats against survival. This response is recognized as the first stage of the general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms. The reaction begins in the amygdala, which triggers a neural response in the hypothalamus. The initial reaction is followed by activation of the pituitary gland and secretion of the hormone ACTH.  Ref, Ref 

The adrenal gland is activated almost simultaneously and releases the hormone epinephrine. The release of chemical messengers results in the production of the hormone cortisol, which increases blood pressure, blood sugar, and suppresses the immune system. The initial response and subsequent reactions are triggered in an effort to create a boost of energy. This boost of energy is activated by epinephrine binding to liver cells and the subsequent production of glucose. Additionally, the circulation of cortisol functions to turn fatty acids into available energy, which prepares muscles throughout the body for response. Catecholamine hormones, such as adrenaline (epinephrine) or noradrenaline (norepinephrine), facilitate immediate physical reactions associated with a preparation for violent muscular action and:

• Acceleration of heart and lung action
• Paling or flushing, or alternating between both
• Inhibition of stomach and upper-intestinal action to the point where digestion slows down or stops
• General effect on the sphincters of the body
• Constriction of blood vessels in many parts of the body
• Liberation of metabolic energy sources (particularly fat and glycogen) for muscular action
• Dilation of blood vessels for muscles
• Inhibition of the lacrimal gland (responsible for tear production) and salivation
• Dilation of pupil (mydriasis)
• Relaxation of bladder
• Inhibition of erection
• Auditory exclusion (loss of hearing)
• Tunnel vision (loss of peripheral vision)
• Disinhibition of spinal reflexes
• Shaking  Ref, Ref 

The physiological changes that occur during the fight or flight response are activated in order to give the body increased strength and speed in anticipation of fighting or running. Some of the specific physiological changes and their functions include:

• Increased blood flow to the muscles is activated by diverting blood flow from other parts of the body.
• Increased blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugars, and fats in order to supply the body with extra energy.
• The blood clotting function of the body speeds up in order to prevent excessive blood loss in the event of an injury sustained during the response.
• Increased muscle tension in order to provide the body with extra speed and strength. Ref, Ref

Here is a little on Consequentialist ethics and Utilitarian ethics

*Consequentialist ethics: “involves a class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means“, meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable. Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct from the character of the behavior itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct.” Ref  

“It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods. Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable “side-constraints” which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do.” Ref

*Utilitarian ethics: “involve an ethical theory which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. “Utility” is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally. Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism) or whether agents should conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to whether total (total utilitarianism) or average (average utilitarianism) utility should be maximized. Though the seeds of the theory can be found in the hedonists Aristippus and Epicurus, who viewed happiness as the only good, the tradition of utilitarianism properly began with Bentham, and has included John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, R. M. Hare, David Braybrooke, and Peter Singer. It has been applied to social welfare economics, the crisis of global poverty, the ethics of raising animals for food and the importance of avoiding existential risks to humanity.” ref 

“Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have been developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have different targets. Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, criticizes Bentham’s utilitarianism on the grounds that it does not appear to recognize that different people have different joys: Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was not discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature.” ref  

“This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticize all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naivete, he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea [no day without a line]”, piled up mountains of books.” ref  

“An article in the American Journal for Economics has addressed the issue of Utilitarian ethics within the redistribution of wealth. The journal stated that taxation of the wealthy is the best way to make use of the disposable income they receive. This says that the money creates utility for the most people by funding government services. Many utilitarian philosophers, including Peter Singer and Toby Ord, argue that inhabitants of developed countries, in particular, have an obligation to help to end extreme poverty across the world, for example by regularly donating some of their income to charity.” ref  

“Peter Singer, for example, argues that donating some of one’s income to charity could help to save a life or cure somebody from a poverty-related illness, which is a much better use of the money as it brings someone in extreme poverty far more happiness than it would bring to oneself if one lived in relative comfort. However, Singer not only argues that one ought to donate a significant proportion of one’s income to charity, but also that this money should be directed to the most cost-effective charities, in order to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, consistent with utilitarian thinking. Singer’s ideas have formed the basis of the modern effective altruist movement.” ref

MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”):

“To me, this relates to care/caring ethics, which affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion, and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars. This moral theory known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, “care” involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourselves and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion, and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars.” ref 

“One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Though there are notable thinkers who express early strains of care ethics such as those that can be detected in the writings of feminist philosophers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine and Harriet Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins. Offering a general charged that traditional moral approaches contain a kinda of male bias, and asserting the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics. Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, is that of care ethics.” ref 

*ps. MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “care ethics (ethics of care)/reciprocity (reciprocal altruism ethics) is similar to the fight or flight which is also only part of a bigger picture, according to Shelley Taylor, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues. In the Psychological Review, as in evolutionary psychology, researchers describe how stress can elicit another behavioral pattern they call “tend and befriend”–especially in females. Tend-and-befriend is a behavior exhibited by some animals, including humans, in response to threat. ref 

It refers to the protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out the social group for mutual defense (befriending), tend-and-befriend is theorized as having evolved as the typical female response to stress, just as the primary male response was fight-or-flight. This kind of gender determinism within the field is the subject of some controversy but I see it as too limited as well because we tend to use multiple strategies to further secure safety depending on available resources and if one regardless of gender persuasion is not able to either adequately defend themselves/or others (the fight part of fight or flight ) or is not able to either adequately flee a given threat (the flight part of fight or flight ) then other options such as  The tend-and-befriend theoretical model was originally developed by Dr. Shelley E. Taylor and her research team at the University of California, Los Angeles and first described in a Psychological Review article published in the year 2000. ref 

“The moral theory known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, “care” involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourselves and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion, and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars.” ref 

“One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Both charged traditional moral approaches with male bias, and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics.” ref 

Here is a little on Care ethics and Reciprocal altruism

*Care ethics: is a normative ethical theory that holds interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue as central to moral action. It is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. Here is a link to Feminist ethics. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response. The shift in moral perspective is manifested by a change in the moral question from “what is just?” to “how to respond?”. Ethics of care criticize the application of universal standards as “morally problematic since it breeds moral blindness or indifference.  ref, ref 

Some beliefs of the theory are basic:

1. Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another. This is in contrast to deontological and consequentialist theories that tend to view persons as having independent interests and interactions.
2. Those particularly vulnerable to one’s choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to their vulnerability to one’s choices.
3. It is necessary to attend to contextual details of situations in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved.

“Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological theories (e.g. Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues and values which, proponents of care ethics contend, are absent in such traditional models of ethics. While some feminists have criticized care-based ethics for reinforcing traditional stereotypes of a “good woman” others have embraced parts of this paradigm under the theoretical concept of care-focused feminism. Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially engendered to women and consequently devalued. “Care-focused feminists regard women’s capacity for care as a human strength” which can and should be taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model of moral dilemma, than an ethic of justice. Noddings’ care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care. Ethics of care is also a basis for care-focused feminist theorizing on maternal ethics.” Ref 

“Critical of how society engenders caring labor, theorists Sara Ruddick, Virginia Held, and Eva Feder Kittay suggest caring should be performed and caregivers valued in both public and private spheres. Their theories recognize caring as an ethically relevant issue. This proposed paradigm shift in ethics encourages that an ethic of caring be the social responsibility of both men and women. Joan Tronto argues that the definition of the term “ethic of care” is ambiguous due in part to the lack of a central role it plays in moral theory. She argues that considering moral philosophy is engaged with human goodness, then care would appear to assume a significant role in this type of philosophy. However, this is not the case and Tronto further stresses the association between care and “naturalness”. The latter term refers to the socially and culturally constructed gender roles where care is mainly assumed to be the role of the woman. As such, care loses the power to take a central role in moral theory.”  Ref 

Tronto states there are four ethical elements of care:

1. Attentiveness
   Attentiveness is crucial to the ethics of care because care requires a recognition of others’ needs in order to respond to them. The question which arises is the distinction between ignorance and inattentiveness. Tronto poses this question as such, “But when is ignorance simply ignorance, and when is it inattentiveness”?
2. Responsibility
   In order to care, we must take it upon ourselves, thus the responsibility. The problem associated with this second ethical element of responsibility is the question of obligation. The obligation is often, if not already, tied to pre-established societal and cultural norms and roles. Tronto makes the effort to differentiate the terms “responsibility” and “obligation” with regards to the ethic of care. Responsibility is ambiguous, whereas obligation refers to situations where action or reaction is due, such as the case of a legal contract. This ambiguity allows for ebb and flow in and between class structures and gender roles, and to other socially constructed roles that would bind responsibility to those only befitting of those roles.
3. Competence
   To provide care also means competency. One cannot simply acknowledge the need to care, and accept the responsibility, but not follow through with enough adequacy – as such action would result in the need of care not being met.
4. Responsiveness
   This refers to the “responsiveness of the care receiver to the care”. Tronto states, “Responsiveness signals an important moral problem within care: by its nature, care is concerned with conditions of vulnerability and inequality”. She further argues responsiveness does not equal reciprocity. Rather, it is another method to understand vulnerability and inequality by understanding what has been expressed by those in the vulnerable position, as opposed to re-imagining oneself in a similar situation. Ref

“Reciprocal altruism: (the evolution of cooperation)is a social interaction phenomenon where an individual makes sacrifices for another individual in expectation of similar treatment in the future. Originally introduced as a concept by biologist Robert Trivers, reciprocal altruism explains how altruistic behavior and morality can arise from evolutionary causes, as evolution selects for the best possible game theory results. If the benefit is higher than the initial cost, then multiple reciprocal interactions can actually out-compete more “greedy” forms of relationships, thus providing an evolutionary incentive for altruistic behavior. At the same time (and in opposition to unlimited altruism), reciprocity ensures that cheaters are also harmed when they choose to do so and are gradually made less fit as a result of their own behavior. Modern ethnology seems to support at least part of this hypothesis, as many societies on all continents have developed highly complex forms of gift economy where gifts are given with no immediately obvious material return, but the implicit societal expectation of “repayment” in gift form at some later point in time.” Ref  

“Amazingly, those societies work. The custom of giving gifts for birthdays in the West may be seen as a remnant of this. It’s not uncommon for someone to engage in this behavior with the object of their affection, i.e. being nice to them with the expectation of a sexual relationship. Since a lot of these situations tend to involve lonely, single straight men, the common term for this is “Nice Guy” — in other words, the suitor’s claim “but I’m a nice guy…” translates to “I went through all the motions and she still won’t sleep with me.” As a general rule, this is not an effective strategy, and often even drifts into stalking behavior. Women who engage in the same behavior do not get as much attention but are still known (naturally) as Nice Girls. Either way, such people are seldom actually nice, and frequently come off as manipulative and bitter without realizing it. The fallacy lies in their equating sexual relationship with being nice – if their expectation of tit for tat was actually equal, aka being nice for being nice and being honest for being honest (which they, coming into relationship with entirely different expectations than they communicate, fail at), they wouldn’t face such a problem.” Ref

I see my Axiological driven morality to involve an enmeshed union of both:

Fight or flight “justice perspective” and a Tend and befriend “voice of care perspective.”

Helping is Helpful: Valuing, Motivating, Supporting

How to Grow in Our Positive Outcomes: Gratitude, Empathy, and Kindness

We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, which then motivates the behavior of kindness.

Universal ethics: There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. My Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Ref, Ref, Ref 

Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. Universal ethics does not mean the imposition of one set of morals by one group on another. It means a shared way or means of reaching a consensus on norms and values that also accepts diversity. A shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In any circumstance or situation, we can start by examining the present state of affairs. This should be done with the aim of gaining an understanding of other cultural differences, history, and tradition, remembering that an explanation is not necessarily a justification. Next, what is the minimum that is acceptable? There has to be an acceptance that some disagreements cannot be resolved at that time. The aim is to change the present situation for the better. Once an acceptable minimum is reached, it is possible to work towards an eventual ideal state. Ref, Ref, Ref 

We are all one community and we are all responsible for upholding human rights for each other. More than ever there is a need for agreement on the existence of universally held values and the content of those values. It may prove to be impossible to find one set of universal ethical principles that apply to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions but the destination is only part of the journey. The value lies in the search for principles that can be shared by all and can underpin the framework for global dialogue on ethical issues. A universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions we are all born with. Or it might be a set of explicit norms and values humans might one day universally accept. But a more important sense of ‘universal moral code’ is of a set of moral values that is universally valid, whether or not it is inscribed in our brains, or accepted by people. Of course, that is a very controversial idea. If there is such a universal moral code, then we have an imperative to try to discover it, and to make it universally accepted (to make it a moral code in the descriptive sense). But this requires thinking hard about ethics, not looking for some code that might or might not be written into our brains. Ref, Ref, Ref

Values (morality motivations): are an amalgam of personal, family, local or extended group environmental, religious and/or cultural content, etc. we are what we eat we are the knowledge we consume, and the ideas we are sounded by. Values to me thus are self-driven ideals others influenced. I like to think myself out of the matrix though if I would have grown up in china would I not be a different me. Born rich and loved as a child be different or adopted by Angelina Jolie be forever changed. Or the love child of Jeffry Dahmer or Mahatma Gondi would I still be the same me with the same values? I think not. Values are not fixed they change throughout one’s lifetime they can be absolute or relative, the assumption of which can be the basis for any sort of chosen action. Thus, a value system is a set of consistent values and measures one chooses because of their connectedness to chosen ideals. Values to me can be a foundation upon which other thinking streams and measures of ideal integrity are based. Those values which are not physiologically determined and normally considered objective, such as a desire to avoid physical pain, seek pleasure, etc., are considered subjective, vary across individuals and cultures, and are in many ways aligned with belief and belief systems only truth to a set of people.

In general I am a Universal Ethicist?

I am a Universal Ethicist holding the value of universal ethical principles and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a moral doctrine, a justice reasoning not for or by any mythology or toads direct opposition to any religion or faith in goddess or gods (Kuhmerker, Gielen, & Hayes, 1994). Universal ethicists are one who draw from collective values, no matter what country or varied cultures, claim that what is acceptable generally are common ethical standards that can be used to judged moral behaviors regardless of location (Newton, 2009). Universal ethical principles are a form of natural and rational moral code for all humankind not fixed or proclaimed by moral prophets or the founders of the world’s religions (Foldvary, 1980). Universal ethical principles and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights are a strict standard of freedoms, justus, and principles applicable to all. Such values extend to all children and adults alike having the same rights. All rights are interconnected and of equal importance (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2008). A Universal Ethicist, Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world (United Nations, 2008). A Universal Ethicist value of universal ethical principles is different from religious proclaimed moral codes because universal ethical principles are ethical codes to set all free to believe and live as they wish but strive to do no harm and are applicable to all humankind whether religious or not (Foldvary, 1980). ref, ref 

But What Good is a Set of Principles?

“There are many tools for decision making, but few (secular) guides to indicate when situations might have an ethical implication. Yet this awareness is a crucial first step before decisions are made. Recognizing the moral context of a situation must precede any attempt to resolve it. Otherwise, what’s to resolve? Ethical dilemmas rarely present themselves as such. They usually pass us by before we know it or develop so gradually that we can only recognize them in hindsight – a little like noticing the snake after you’ve been bitten. But what are the signs that a snake might be present? An ethical framework is like a ‘snake detector’. I offer the following principles as landmarks – generic indicators to be used as compelling guides for an active conscience. They are NOT absolute rules or values. They are more like a rough measurement where an exact one is not possible. They often conflict with each other in practice, and some will trump others under certain circumstances. But as principles that need to be considered, they appear constant. These principles are compatible with the argument that we should simply follow our intuition and rely on the ‘inner voice’.” Ref  

“However, that voice is not always audible, and today’s society presents a wide range of complex circumstances that require more guidance than simply ‘concern for others’ or ‘does it feel right?’ And so these principles are offered effectively as a more detailed reference. In a sense, the principles are outcomes of the mother of all principles – unconditional love and compassion – which appears in virtually all faiths, and is expressed here as ‘concern for the well-being of others’. (This principle is at the heart of the stakeholder model of ethics, i.e. what is my impact on others?) At first glance, they will appear obvious and perhaps trite or simplistic. Keep in mind that they are meant to be practical rather than groundbreaking, and that many people have found them useful in the absence of other guides.” Ref 

“Universal ethics: there are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. In ethics, a ‘universal code of ethics’ is a system of ethics that can apply to every sentient being.” Ref

Religion and Science are Completely Different Epistemologies

Some try to say that science and religion ear not that different saying they both use faith. This is utter nonsense, not only does science not use faith as a method for anything, religion and science are completely different epistemologies. Scientists reason differently than most nonscientists because of a standardized focus on scientific-based reasoning and scientific epistemology. 

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 epistemiclly certainty is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement* 

A basic outline of religious epistemology: Religion: 

Culture/Testimony/ Myths/Scriptures/Revelation/Prophecies (arbitrary and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) + Mysticism, Supernaturalism, Spirtualism, or Theology (arbitrary and unjustified to form explanations, Idealism or misuse of Rationalism; often self-justified or even believe they are beyond a need for justification) – Denial of Relevant Alternatives and Basis (Fideism/Dogmatic Foundationalism/Pseudo-Skepticism/Anti-Rationalism/Anti-Empiricism or Anti-Skepticism) + Superstition, Falsehood, Misconception, Fantasy, or Delusion (unsubstantiated ideas and unjustified way of coming to ideas or Idealism) = Religion Reality Theory = Unjustified Untrue Faith Belief = Religion Faith or Beliefs as Knowledge = Unwarranted Psychological Certainty supportive of incorrectability 

*being psychologically certain believing a truth does not mean that something is not actually false* 

A wise person can even learn from things some people think are stupid.

However, often a stupid person cannot even learn from someone who is wise.

I am strong because I was once ok to feel week and allowed myself the freedom to be ok to be who I was without self-disrespect. I wanted to be more but building a house requires a strong foundation so I worked on that first with self-love and kindness even in my believed weakness, which I realized was the beginning of my strength.

Similarly, as an atheist at the moment of leaving my faith I started with not knowing and at first I was uncomfortable in my believed weakness of not knowing and realizing I could never believe the nonsense in god claims and the religions that supported them, yet I felt in a quandary of not knowing what was true as in just knowing something is a lie does not somehow automatically inform you t what is true. Then with self-love and kindness even in my not knowing what was true, I realized this acknowledged truth was a beginning of my strength in being open to learn and thus know.

I am now strong in my disbelief because I was once willing to feel weak in knowing true information and allowed myself the freedom to be okay to be who I was without self-disrespect inspiring me with the freedom to learn which I have but not just back then, as I am always open to not knowing and this ready to learn. I will sum it up, be open and enjoy being open.  

*I hear all the time but did you read the bible?*

Read the bible, you mean the book of dogmatic propaganda. Yes, sadly I have. I read two versions of the Bible, the King James and the NIV. I have read history, anthropology, and archeology of world religions and understood right thinking because of philosophy. I know a lot, I dont claim to know everything but certainly enough to firmly know religion and gods are myths. I could list countless scriptures to contradict the bible’s credibility (it has none) as I have listed some but true believers will believe as they wish (blind faith). The male god is an invented idea no more than 5,000 years the female goddess is at least 12,000 but the first worship was and the world’s oldest ritual was of a large stone python 70,000 years ago.

Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago  

gOD Believer, Please Think Critically

If you are a believer think critically, it is not the one deity you see as possible without evidence but to notice how many gods or goddesses you reject as impossible without evidence. What kind of thinker can believe that rationally? There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today and many others once were once thought true in history just to be reworked or rejected.

Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers: Christianity: 2.1 billion, Islam: 1.3 billion, Hinduism: 900 million, Chinese traditional religion: 394 million, Buddhism: 376 million, African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million, Sikhism: 23 million, Juche (a.k.a. Chuch’e and Kimilsungism): 19 million, Spiritism: 15 million, Judaism: 14 million, Baha’i: 7 million, Jainism: 4.2 million, Shinto: 4 million, Cao Dai: 4 million, Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million, Tenrikyo: 2 million, Neo-Paganism: 1 million, Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand, Rastafarianism: 600 thousand, Scientology: 500 thousand, [Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

If you can believe only in a possible God of Christianity, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Lord Buddha, Waheguru, Ngame, Isis, Kali, Brigid, Kuan Yin, Europa, Aphrodite, Amaterasu, Aurora, Chicomecoatl, Ishtar, Antares, and all of the thousands of other gods or goddess that other people worship today or once held faith in. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods or goddesses without ever looking into their history, religions, reading, or even learning about them. You may not even know some of the names listed or have heard much about them or the thousands of other deities and mythical beings people now or through time have put faith in. Most people believer or agnostic are singly indoctrinated all their life and simply have absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in, thus you now see only it as the only possible truth.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject god or goddesses without reading or even learning about them as well and as many believers put faith over scientific facts. If you are a believer or agnostic only your possibility is true and you think their gods are imaginary, similarly, they think your god or goddess is imaginary. In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods or goddesses as imaginary.

A rational person armed with history, science, psychology, sociology, biology, and archeology rejects all human gods or goddess myths equally, because all of them are equally human inventions. How do we know that they are human inventions?

Show me a claimed god that is not limited to having to be promoted by people, only transferred by people who were told about this brand of god or it stays unknown or stops being known when it stops being talked about.

Sounds like these claimed all-powerful gods are not any power at all, instead, they are universally limited and as fragile as any lie, you know just stop telling a “god-lie” it stops existing.

These god myths like all myths not only must be told and retold by humans to other humans they suffer another weakness all myths share in that they tend to be changed or altered as they are retold. Some say not my god (let’s say Christians) but this is a pure delusion and undeserved self-confidence as the over 40,000 sects and denominations as well as the many different translations of one book the bible which easily has over 100 versions in English alone. And even using the same translation people differ how they view or believe the myth of the bible god, you can see why now right because it is only a myth that is limited to being believed and being told.

Still not convinced all gods are lies even the one god myth you may like or believe you choose or chose “more likely were raised in and forced to believe” then stop telling people about it and see if it keeps going as always gods have no more power than the believer gives them. God myths are weak and fragile simply stop believing in them and stop talking about them and they stop existing.

Just think what claimed god if real requires you to talk about it or it stops being known. What real features of the world stop existing just because we stop talking about them or stop believing in them? Simply imagine that one of these god myths was actually real it would automatically be real not limited to being expressed to stay seen as real.

We know that all gods are myths as if one of these thousands of mythic gods were actually real, then its believers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These undeniable benefits would not only be obvious to everyone they could be testable and demonstrable limited only to some the believers in the one claimed real god. But spoiler alert no such evidence exists, not that it’s a real shocker as all gods are myths.

That right there is no special anything followers of a claimed one true god have others don’t have but an odd belief in a God myth as true when there is no proof of such claims not even in the lives of the ones doing the claiming.

Because if some myth god was real couldn’t we at least see actual proof in the lives of the ones believing that only occurred in the lives of the believers and was testable and demonstrable like having fewer diseases, or more so-called blessings like more money, etc. In fact, if a belief in a god meant anything at all there would be and I say must be, testable and demonstrable proofs directly connected to or special attributions only surrounding the lives of followers of some claimed true god or it’s just not anything true?

I know if you are a believer in some claimed god you may defensibly say well even if there are not any testable or demonstrable proofs you still should believe as you don’t want to go to hell if you are wrong, to which we all should say and that works for you? As in what a bunch of nonsense and simple reasoning supported only by fear. Stop this unjustified fear and live life free. 

I am Very Strongly Outspoken

That being said I am just into providing valid and reliable information or seeking valid and reliable information. I don’t treat people badly even if I did think they or their ideas were or seemed insane. I also strive to attack thinking and not people. And as long as people say the things are true to them and not provable facts in the world they expect me to agree with or believe, What I am saying about “they think it is true” is their delusion, as it’s only true to them when in reality it’s actually false. I don’t challenge what they wish to believe as to me people own themselves and this includes their beliefs. However, this is not extended to behavior as in I will attack bad or harmful behavior.

 Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings

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:

1. X is a something to fear; therefore
2. 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:

1. Identifying a threat (real or imagined);
2. Offering a prevention;
3. Convincing others that the prevention will be effective;
4. 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:

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

If Christians are so much about love, why are you so well represented by hate groups something us atheists don’t seem to favor much as there are many theistic or religionists connected hate groups of various kinds yet no even one atheist hate group in the bunch. I am not ot saying atheist’s can’t unjustifiablely hate. I am saying that we can produce the demonstrateable really of the situation as there are no atheist hate groups. and this is not some empty provide nothing evidenceless claim of god, my claim for no atheist hate groups, can indeed be tied to evidenceculararally positive responding evidence in this case the obviously clear lack of evidence as the evidence it is not some directly connected issue atheistic beliefs hold.  

Christofascism (Christian and Fascism) as well as Religiofascism (Religion and Fascism):

When I was young I raged at the world for abuse I received from my parents. Then I developed some, so I held my parents accountable, raging at them and the world; as so much was out there, like them. Then I fully developed and became an atheist, thus I started to see my parents were two different versions of Christofascism (Christian and Fascism), as well as I saw that relatively all religions in some way are part of Religiofascism (Religion and Fascism), especially how they often force hereditary religion of children by cursive force or oppression and I became an antireligionist atheist raging against religion as well as the lies of gods.   

Southern Poverty Law Center has a list of may religious hate groups but here are just the Christian hate groups which I have added below: 

1. 11th Hour Remnant Messenger
2. Abundant Life Fellowship
3. America’s Promise Ministries
4. Christian Identity Church – Aryan Nations
5. Church of the Sons of YHWH
6. Covenant People’s Ministry
7. Ecclesiastical Council for the Restoration of Covenant Israel
8. Fellowship of God’s Covenant People
9. First Baptist Church and Ministry
10. First Century Christian Ministries
11. Holy Order Ministry
12. Identity Nation
13. Kingdom Identity Ministries
14. Kinsman Redeemer Ministries
15. Knights of the Holy Identity
16. Mission to Israel
17. Non-Universal Teaching Ministries
18. Our Place Fellowship
19. Scriptures for America Ministries
20. Shepherd’s Call Ministries
21. The Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations
22. The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
23. Thomas Robb Ministries
24. United Identity Church of Christ
25. Virginia Publishing Company
26. Watchmen Bible Study Group
27. Weisman Publications
28. Yahweh’s Truth
29. The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
30. Abiding Truth Ministries
31. American Family Association
32. Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
33. Chalcedon Foundation
34. Christ the King Church (Larkspur, Colorado)
35. Faithful Word Baptist Church
36. Family Research Council
37. Mission: America
38. Pilgrims Covenant Church
39. Providence Road Baptist Church
40. Sons of Thundr (Faith Baptist Church)
41. The Pray in Jesus Name Project
42. Tom Brown Ministries
43. Traditional Values Coalition
44. True Light Pentecost Church
45. Truth In Action Ministries
46. Westboro Baptist Church
47. Windsor Hills Baptist Church
48. World Congress of Families/Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society
49. Bill Keller Ministries
50. Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
51. Christian Books and Things
52. Dove World Outreach Center
53. European-American Evangelistic Crusades
54. Florida Family Association
55. Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints
56. National Prayer Network
57. Official Street Preachers
58. Power of Prophecy
59. Reformation-Bible Puritan-Baptist Church
60. Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments
61. The Brother Nathanael Foundation
62. The Church at Kaweah
63. Tony Alamo Christian Ministries
64. Truth At Last
65. Truth Triumphant
66. Ku Klux Klan
67. Christian Defense League
68. Alliance for Catholic Tradition
69. Catholic Action Resource Center
70. Catholic Counterpoint
71. Catholic Family News/Catholic Family Ministries, Inc.
72. Christ or Chaos
73. Culture Wars/Fidelity Press
74. The Fatima Crusader/International Fatima Rosary Crusade
75. IHM Media
76. IHS Press
77. In the Spirit of Chartres Committee
78. Most Holy Family Monastery
79. OMNI Christian Book Club
80. The Remnant/The Remnant Press
81. Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
82. Michael’s Parish/Mount St. Michael
83. Tradition in Action Ref

Can atheists have a code of sexual morality?

by Marty Klein Ph.D.

“This question is at once hilarious, insulting, pathetic, and revealing. It only makes sense if you believe in two things:

1. Moral thought and behavior are essentially determined by the fear of punishment;

2. The definition of “morality” regarding sex is different than it is for other human endeavors.

And indeed, young children and emotionally under-developed adults do make moral choices based on the fear of punishment. Organized religion relies on and promotes this style of personality organization: “Do the right thing or God will punish you.” And what is the right thing regarding sex? Every organized religion has highly specific answers to this question. They mostly involve “God doesn’t want you to do sex this way; God strongly prefers you do sex that way.” And if you disagree with God about your sexual expression, see rule #1.” ref 

“Divorce Rates for Atheists Are Among the Lowest in America and yet Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often:

11% of all American adults are divorced

25% of all American adults have had at least one divorce

27% of born-again Christians have had at least one divorce

24% of all non-born-again Christians have been divorced

21% of atheists have been divorced

21% of Catholics and Lutherans have been divorced

24% of Mormons have been divorced

25% of mainstream Protestants have been divorced

29% of Baptists have been divorced

24% of nondenominational, independent Protestants have been divorced

27% of people in the South and Midwest have been divorced

26% of people in the West have been divorced

19% of people in the Northwest and Northeast have been divorced.” ref 

It Turns out Christians at 70% have more abortions than any other religious group in America and only 4% are atheist or 8% are agnostic.

“The survey was conducted by the LifeWay group in partnership with the pregnancy center support organization Care Net, which also runs “the nation’s only real-time call center providing pregnancy decision coaching” with hopes that those who call in will be “transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ and empowered to choose life.” The survey, which polled 1,038 women who’d had abortions from across the U.S., found that almost 40% of those women were attending a Christian church once a month or more at the time of their abortion, but that a majority of the women who attended church regularly kept their abortion a secret from their church community, mostly out of fear of being judged or condemned. Almost half of the women agreed that “pastors’ teachings on forgiveness don’t seem to apply to terminated pregnancies,” and 54 percent agreed that churches “over-simplify decisions about pregnancy options.” ref 

I am an axiological atheist? 

And if you wonder what that means here is a little on that:

Axiological Atheism, axiological (value theory and or value science) atheism, is also considered a constructive form of atheism. Axiological Atheism not only rejects the existence of god(s) it favors things with real meaning and value like humans and humanity as well as the science of value in formal axiology.

This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to mythical things like gOD(s).

Marx, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument of axiological atheism whether they knew it or not to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. Axiological Atheism answers or offers a different thinking to one of the most common criticisms of some forms of atheism, that they have no bases of or for morality and or value.

Axiological atheism can be thought to believe in “good” utilizing the understanding of value theory and formal axiology holding that there can be truth in objective morality or universal ethics holding that life can be meaningful showing to that denying the existence of a god(s) does not have to lead to moral relativism, leave one with no moral or ethical foundation, or somehow must renders life meaningless and miserable.

I thus as an axiological atheist believe good or basic morality seeing it as natural and evolutionary such as all mammals seem to express or display elements of morality such as compassion, empathy, altruism, group bonding, shame, etc. but we human higher reasoning animals are different or more advanced.

We do have higher moral reasoning than animals and can affirm or have intentionality in ethical standards we also can grasp the systemic or big picture and future ramifications to actions animals are more commonly fixed in here and now thinking.

Doing helpful supportive things creates more good in the world” is NOT a human-limited concept and does not require some kind of “magic book with super being derived morals it is already hard-wired in us as a survive and thrive nature for beneficial evolutionary adaptation success.

The “good brings more good” concept is an inherent and fundamental aspect of reality. In a physics example: you create enough heat, eventually, things nearby start burning (making additional heat increases, even though it’s happening independently, or beyond, of your original input).

Axiological atheism: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Roughly understood axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism. 

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 Iconoclast to religions and gods as they are lies. Thus, that is one of my atheist motivations to destroy them like all untruth. Firebrand-Atheists-Unite, I profess my Iconoclasm to anti-humanistic things in society and politics, as they also lie and other unethical and inhumanity harmful to human well-being as well as positive flushing.  So that is part of my atheist motivation to destroy them like all untruth and humanity harm. 

My anarchism (Anarcho-Humanism)

I am not an american first. I am a global citizen first. I am not a american first as I see humanity as hindered in its value, if it strongly puts nationalism over humanism. I do not have a problem with others liking their country but when this like creates a superior or dislike of all other countries then I do look down on that. We are truly one people one world, you all are a valued part of my shared and connected humanity only ignorance and hate of this humanistic awareness stands in our way to making a better world for all.  

Facts about Atheists

“Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals (compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%). In addition, three-quarters (74%) say that government aid to the poor does more good than harm. Virtually no atheists (1%) turn to religion for guidance on questions of right and wrong, but increasing numbers are turning to science. About a third of atheists (32%) say they look primarily to science for guidance on questions of right and wrong, up from 20% in 2007. A plurality (44%) still cite “practical experience and common sense” as their primary guide on such questions, but that is down from 52% in 2007.” ref  

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. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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. – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

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) 

Moreover, 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 atheists 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 were 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). = no value 

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 anti-humanistic 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). = no value 

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). = no value 

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 is 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 believers and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish for 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 misunderstandings as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior. = value 

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. = value  

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  

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

God myths are 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?   

Fallacies of Presumption

by Garth Kemerling of Philosophy Pages

Unwarranted Assumptions

The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. Again, we’ll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon which it is based.

Accident

The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

• Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
• Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
• Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.

As we’ll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal statement that “Every woman earns less than any man.” would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.

Converse Accident

The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way, and then errs by deriving from this case the truth of a general rule.

• Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.
• Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.

It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general principle. Since it’s easy for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.

False Cause

The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connection simply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.

• The moon was full on Thursday evening.
• On Friday morning I overslept.
• Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.

Later we’ll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.

Begging the Question (petitio principii)

Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:

• All dogs are mammals.
• All mammals have hair.
• Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
• But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
• Therefore, all dogs are mammals.

Unlike the other fallacies we’ve considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn’t really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can’t use it unless we have already granted that.

Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:

• Have you tried to stop watching too much television?
• If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
• If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
• Therefore, you watch too much television.

In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous fallacy. We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove. ref

• 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.
• Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
• Axiological Atheism not Nihilist Atheism
• Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher
• I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism
• Axiological Atheism is Intellectualism
• “Value Theory/Value Science” atheism: AXIOLOGICAL ATHEISM
• Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism
• Axiological Atheism Supports Humanism & Secularism
• Axiological Atheism Morality Critique: of the bible god
• As an Axiological Atheist, I wish for Human Flourishing
• Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?
• Losing My Religion and MY Faith Addiction
• Ignostic Atheist: Do you Have a Coherent Definition of god?
• god Claims are a Non-Reality Commodity
• My Blogs on the Evolution of RELIGION
• Explaining My thoughts on the Evolution of Religion
• My Blogs Somewhat Relating to Science
• I am against Hereditary religion?
• Blogs on Gender/Sexism and Religion
• Lovestyle or Lifestyle Options
• My blog on The Way of a Sound Axiological Thinker
• Main Deity or Religious Belief Systems  

Axiology: Intrinsic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Systemic Value

Value Science in a Nutshell | Psychology Today

“In Formal Axiology, (science of value, or value science, is a creation of philosopher Robert S. Hartman), it is thought that the three basic dimensions of value, systemic, extrinsic and intrinsic for sets of properties—perfection is to systemic value what goodness is to extrinsic value and what uniqueness is to intrinsic value, which attempts to formally elucidate value theory using both formal and symbolic logic. The fundamental principle, which functions as an axiom, and can be stated in symbolic logic, is that a thing is good insofar as it exemplifies its concept. To put it another way, “a thing is good if it has all its descriptive properties.” – Wikipedia

“Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments. For example, according to a fundamental form of consequentialism, whether an action is morally right or wrong has exclusively to do with whether its consequences are intrinsically better than those of any other action one can perform under the circumstances. Many other theories also hold that what it is right or wrong to do has at least in part to do with the intrinsic value of the consequences of the actions one can perform. Moreover, if, as is commonly believed, what one is morally responsible for doing is some function of the rightness or wrongness of what one does, then, intrinsic value would seem relevant to judgments about responsibility, too.” ref  

“Intrinsic value is also often taken to be pertinent to judgments about moral justice (whether having to do with moral rights or moral desert), insofar as it is good that justice is done and bad that justice is denied, in ways that appear intimately tied to intrinsic value. Finally, it is typically thought that judgments about moral virtue and vice also turn on questions of intrinsic value, inasmuch as virtues are good, and vices bad, again in ways that appear closely connected to such value. All four types of moral judgments have been the subject of discussion since the dawn of western philosophy in ancient Greece. The Greeks themselves were especially concerned with questions about virtue and vice, and the concept of intrinsic value may be found at work in their writings and in the writings of moral philosophers ever since. Despite this fact, and rather surprisingly, it is only within the last one hundred years or so that this concept has itself been the subject of sustained scrutiny, and even within this relatively brief period the scrutiny has waxed and waned.” ref

• 1. What Has Intrinsic Value?
• 2. What Is Intrinsic Value?
• 3. Is There Such a Thing As Intrinsic Value At All?
• 4. What Sort of Thing Can Have Intrinsic Value?
• 5. How Is Intrinsic Value to Be Computed?
• 6. What Is Extrinsic Value?

Axiology As A Science: ROBERT S. HARTMAN INSTITUTE

Deconstructing Pseudo-Morality with Axiology Understanding? 

Formal Axiology: Another Victim in Religion’s War on Science by W. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Axiological Atheist Theorist Damien AtHope Interviews Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher 

Neuro-axiology: Answering The Central Question by Peter D. Demarest 

The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Value Inquiry Book 169) (Hartman Institute Axiology Studies) 

The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Value Inquiry Book 169) (Hartman Institute Axiology Studies by Leon Pomerory Ph.D.)

New Axiological Psychology Revisited Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.

Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology in Research (VIDEO) 

Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology in Research (SLIDE PRESENTATION)  

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

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates 

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

Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

• *REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)
• *The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
• *Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
• *Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor. Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true.

The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explaining 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. The 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 some thing 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 

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

1. No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis is 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 in some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god-talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
2. No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
3. No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[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 that form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”. – Wikipedia  

 I am a BIG fan of the truth. 

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

My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!! I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly?

Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value. And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree with or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree with or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

“Damien, what I find interesting is how an atheist like you spends so much time and energy on God and religion.” – Challenger

My response, Well, let’s see, maybe because we atheists and anti-religionists care to inform our fellow humans who have been lied to and are lying to others and often forcing religion on children indoctrinating them with lies over truth and it’s harming us all. You know, all the religious hate groups and religious violence stuff and the like. What I find interesting is how could a responsible caring ethical person stay silent against religions, that my friend is a much better question.

What is it to be Rational? I am a Rationalist.

As an atheist rationalist, I tend to filter everything through reason, empirical facts, and ethics before they can be accepted as justified, true or good.

A Rational Mind Values Humanity

A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them, as they too are the same, and therefore, rationally as well a humanistically, we should work for this humanity we are part of. Moreover, we simply can either dwell in or help its flourishing (the humanity we are part of), as we are all in a metaphoric way, are in the hands of each other, and communally need each other.

We rise by helping each other and we may fail if we keep going as hurtful as humans too often are to each other. May we be good humans. We can be builders of life or its destruction. The person is political so the actions of my life are the expression of my political values even before I tell you what brand I may claim. We are not our past, though we are bound to it. We are also not our future selves yet.

So, just be the best you in the here and now. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. What do your actions say?

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

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 don’t need religions to understand the world or how to behave in it either.

Life is too Short, to Not be Kind

“Life is too short to not be kind”, is something I now realize as an atheist and no gods required. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity. To master oneself also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I once cared the world about what others thought, then I started to realize I had forgotten about impressing the most important person, ME. Now I realize my power to be a shining light for goodness and kindness.

Thus, creating the world, I want to live in, striving for flushing, which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. Don’t let anything hold you back if you feel like you lost your humanity you can get it back. I know I did. We are the authors of our lives until we are gone, so don’t stop until you’re through. Show the world you can be your best no matter what. Don’t let others write your story for you, be your own champion, you’re worth it and others need you too. I need you and we all need each other.

Survival of the Friendliest and Kindest

Damien Marie AtHope: Atheist-Humanist Philosopher & Pre-Historical Freelance Writer/Researcher-activist, blogger, video creator, artist, poet, and event producer/speaker/coordinator for damienmarieathope.com

• A Comment from a fan: “Damien, you were a victim of what you call Christofascism (christian and fascism) as well as religiofascism (religion and fascism). And now you are a warrior for the victims of religious oppression. Imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have people like you out there. (Religion run amok, untethered). Thank you, Damien Marie AtHope.”
• Another Comment from a Fan: “You argue atheism from a wide variety of angles. There is the rationalist rebuke, then there is the axiological rebuke. The former is truth-based, the second is value-based. While reason alone will suffice for some, most people believe emotionally, and the axiological aspect of showing them why religion produces immorality rebukes the emotional/ pseudo-moral component of faith as well. You package a lot of argumentative clout into short phrases for your lovely artwork.”
• Another Comment from a Fan: “A favorite thing about what you do is your creative and generous way of sharing all your knowledge for the good of humankind. I admire & respect your ability to approach an inherently hostile subject with humor & genuine love. You are passionate about what is good and what is real. You strive to endow others with knowledge to better their own understanding. You have a pursuit of honesty and integrity. You tackle the nonsense of religious claims that are unmerited unsubstantiated and untenable. You make this all simple and easy to grasp for the leity.”
• Another Comment from a Fan: “Damien, what I like about you is because you try, you try to be honest, you try to be kind, you try to be good to those less fortunate just because it’s the right thing to do, you try to promote love over hatred, you try to be a good person! (Those are just the first reasons that come to mind when I think about you.)”
• Another Comment from a Fan: “Damien, I have never seen any single human being who is so devoted to unfolding some of the absurd things about religion and examining it in a very scientific and ration way. Bravo”
• Yer Another Comment from a Fan: “Damien, I love what you’re doing for the atheist community bro. You’ve been an inspiration to me. Just keep being a positive influence. We need you. We atheists need you.”

“Damien, you say you are anti-theist but you also sound like an anti-religionist and seem anti-spiritual as well.” – Commenter

My response, Well, I am all three. And yes, anti-theism is the rejection of theism is limited to the rejection of theism as being negative or harmful. Thus should be opposed, both the concept of god/gods even if they could be real, and those religions that promote Theism. I am also an anti-religionist as I oppose religion in general. I am against woo-woo terms like spiritual as it’s not real to anything and what it claims to attach to things real, are adding a woo-woo label to natural feelings that don’t require any woo-woo label they are just human emotional feelings as we are emotional beings. I’m anti-nonsense.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

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

Sky Father/Sky God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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