Atheist Activism Training #1: Know You, Know Your Motivations and Understand Others

Atheist Activism Training VIDEO #1 info outline:

“Know You, Know Your Motivations and Understand Others”

Know You: clearly know your thinking and beliefs as you will be challenged. But don’t just let them get info from you, instead offer it in a way that you want, don’t be forced by their questions, always hold the goal of getting what you want out of it, a teaching opportunity. Or share ideas striving to get back to asking them questions from what you say. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. Some people fight for people and some seem to just like to fight with people. We are our best when we are showing thoughtful regard, not thoughtless indifference.

Know Your Motivations: be clear on your goals in activism and to me this is best accomplished with goals of helping others think and reason what they believe to aid them in seeing it in a new way, one that challenges and enlightens them. If winning is a goal, then teaching takes a back seat. So, to be the most effecting strive to put teaching first and ego in the back seat. Our main internal goal should hold fast to a valued belief etiquette ourselves as well as for others: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Be thoughtful in what you say, because, words once released have power, due them being a method of transferring feelings not just ideas. Words are world builders and dramatic destructors. They can build mental castles to protect or dungeons to torment.

Understand Others: People will generally be defensive, especially so, when you are out on the streets doing atheist activism. Therefore, you should strive to be friendly and thoughtful rather than defensive back. Their goal will likely be about challenging you or winning for their ideas. Thus, strive show them it’s about sharing ideas and teaching. To me, I wish others self-mastery, thus do not feel a need to try and change people who may think differently, rather I wish to create a caring space if I can, so they can see things differently if they wish. Asking the right questions at the right time, with the right info can also aid them in seeing a need to change their mind if their ideas are lacking or in error. You can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, don’t let people read you their script of ideas. Stop their fixed pattern of thinking, open them up with thoughtful questions as denial of logic is a pattern of thinking that cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking. This is especially so if one is trying to hold ideas that are lacking or in error, or if they do open their pattern of thinking, then they run the risk of new truth slipping in. Therefore, helping people alter skewed thinking amounts to opening their thinking which is indeed a large task of ontology questions (what are you talking about), epistemology questions (how do you know that) and axiological questions (how is that justified, reasonable or logical) which I label my hammer of truth.

What is going on in perceptions: Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or what I often just call right thinking.

Emotional Intelligence: the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one’s emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically. https://www.google.com/search?q=emotional+intelligence&oq=Emotional+Intelligence&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j46j0l3.1050j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Emotional Hijacking (Amygdala hijack): describe emotional responses from people which are immediate and overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack

So, to me, the termed “Right” thinking, is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth on top another like blocks to a wall of truth. We need to realize there are different thinking states and how to navigate this:

*Feeling/Emotional Thinking that is the least open to logic you must help them move to a different thinking state to teach them effectively.

*Non-Emotional Thinking that is a little more open to logic but still it is better if you help them move to a different thinking state to teach them effectively.

*Reasoned Thinking that is way more open to logic but if you can help them move to a different thinking state to teach them effectively.

*Logic Thinking that is the most open to logic understanding thinking and will help you to teach them effectively.

Know what state they are in and if you see them at a lower thinking state aid them first in coming back up. I want a war of ideas where the loser is ignorance or hate and the victor is kindness and a rational mind. Not another religious war with people where the loser is always humanity no matter the victor. What I hope for with my discussions or expressed ideas is not so much to strive to change people’s mind. But instead, I wish to inspire their mind to reason and to thrive on the logical search for valid and reliable evidence as well as a high standard n your ethics of belief. This ethics of belief a burden of proof or a sound justification. I hope everyone adopts something like this: reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.

“Logical thinking is the process in which one uses reasoning consistently to come to a conclusion. Problems or situations that involve logical thinking call for structure, for relationships between facts, and for chains of reasoning that make sense without contradictions. Logical thinking is the process in which one uses reasoning consistently to come to a conclusion. Problems or situations that involve logical thinking call for structure, for relationships between facts, and for chains of reasoning that “make sense.” https://www.edubloxtutor.com/logical-thinking/

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

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:

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)
*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)

All Ideas above written by Damien Marie AtHope

Damien AtHope: Atheist-Humanist Philosopher, Activist & Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher at damien.marie.athope.com
Emilee Seaman: Atheist-Humanist Activist

(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/)

Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?

There is more than one certainty the most valid or highest one, that I and most philosophers agree with which is Epistemic Certainty. Psychological certainty (strong emotional confidence) is all religious have meant nothing but you personally believe not if that belief is valid. Epistemic Certainty: “I know to a valid and reliable standard which is justified” vs “I believe with psychological certainties strong emotional confidence”

As a rationalist, when I debate or challenge a position or thinking I want the epistemically provable truth, as I am not only closed to my own ideas, rather, I am just as will to adapt my position if given strong warrant or justification supported by valid and reliable reason and evidence with epistemic credibility.

“We can also distinguish between psychological and epistemic certainty and philosophers have focused more on epistemic certainty than psychological certainty. To be psychologically certain is, roughly, to be sure, confident, or without doubt about something—as when one says, “I was certain he was innocent, but it was all wishful thinking.” Other times, we intend to refer to an epistemic property or state and not (or not merely) a psychological one. When one says, “I am certain that triangles have exactly three sides, they are not (or not merely) saying that they are confident but that one’s confidence is appropriate: that they are in an ideal epistemic position with respect to it.” ref

Epistemically Rational Beliefs

Which is more epistemically rational, believing that which by lack of evidence could be false or disbelieving that which by insufficient evidence could be true?

“Epistemic rationality is part of rationality involving, achieving accurate beliefs about the world. It involves updating on receiving new evidence, mitigating cognitive biases, and examining why you believe what you believe.” Ref

Being Epistemically Rational

To me, the choice is to use the “Ethics of Belief” and thus the more rational approach one would be more motivated is to disbelieve, rather than “Believing that which by lack of evidence could be false”, otherwise you would accept any statement or claim as true no matter how at odds with other verified facts. The ethics of belief refers to a cluster of related issues that focus on standards of rational belief, intellectual excellence, and conscientious belief-formation as well as norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Contemporary discussions of the ethics of belief stem largely from a famous nineteenth-century exchange between the British mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford and the American philosopher William James. . In 1877 Clifford published an article titled “The Ethics of Belief” in a journal called Contemporary Review. There Clifford argued for a strict form of evidentialism that he summed up in a famous dictum: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” As Clifford saw it, people have intellectual as well as moral duties, and both are extremely demanding. People who base their beliefs on wishful thinking, self-interest, blind faith, or other such unreliable grounds are not merely intellectually slovenly; they are immoral. Such bad intellectual habits harm both themselves and society. We sin grievously against our moral and intellectual duty when we form beliefs on insufficient evidence, or ignore or dismiss evidence that is relevant to our beliefs. 1, 2

Definition of epistemic, of or relating to knowledge or knowing

“Epistemic for example can refer to those who “have a high epistemic threshold and do exhaustive analysis to create near certainty, or at least very high conviction, about their epistemically credible thinking, beliefs or claims of knowledge. Wherever it is used, epistemic traces back to the knowledge of the Greeks. It comes from epistēmē, Greek for “knowledge.” That Greek word is from the verb epistanai, meaning “to know or understand,” a word formed from the prefix epi- (meaning “upon” or “attached to”) and histanai (meaning “to cause to stand”). The study of the nature and grounds of knowledge is called epistemology, and one who engages in such study is an epistemologist.” Ref

“Certainty is the acceptance of a fact without doubt. It is a level of confidence attributed to particular knowledge. We are certain when we know something is true, and have no doubts. The term “degrees of certainty” is used to describe how close we are to being certain. Certainty, though, is the upper limit. It is the state where no more doubts exist. When should one be certain? When all knowledge supports the conclusion, and none denies it. If one has a valid reason for doubting something, one should not be certain. If one, for instance, knows there are facts that are unknown, and important in validating the knowledge, one should not be certain. If, however, one believes that all of the relevant information is known, and it all points to the knowledge being true, one should be certain. Certainty is contextual. It is based on one’s current knowledge. It is possible to be certain, and still be wrong.” Ref

“Human beings are not omniscient. They can form conclusions, but there is the possibility of error. Humans need knowledge, though, and need a basis for accepting knowledge as true. They cannot live constantly doubting every piece of knowledge. To survive, they must be able to accept knowledge as true, and act accordingly. The term certainty is often used to describe knowledge without the possibility of doubt. This is omniscience. It is an improper use of the term. Certainty could have no meaning when applied to an omniscient being, since it wouldn’t have the capacity for doubt. It only has meaning when applied to human beings. Its meaning allows the possibility of error, but the contextual lack of doubt.” Ref

Certainty: “I know” vs “I believe”

“Certainty is often explicated in terms of indubitability. What makes possible doubting is “the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn.” Do you certainty that you are reading this in English? I would think all are comfortable accepting that this is written in English you would likely say you have knowledge of this. But like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. Although some philosophers have thought that there is no difference between knowledge and certainty, it has become increasingly common to distinguish them. On this conception, then, certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge. One of the primary motivations for allowing kinds of knowledge less than certainty is the widespread sense that skeptical arguments are successful in showing that we rarely or never have beliefs that are certain (a kind of skeptical argument) but do not succeed in showing that our beliefs are altogether without epistemic worth.” Ref

“There is an argument that skepticism undermines every epistemic status a belief might have and there is an argument that knowledge requires certainty, which we are capable of having. As with knowledge, it is difficult to provide an uncontentious analysis of certainty. There are several reasons for this. One is that there are different kinds of certainty, which are easy to conflate. Another is that the full value of certainty is surprisingly hard to capture. A third reason is that there are two dimensions to certainty: a belief can be certain at a moment or over some greater length of time. There are various kinds of certainty. A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth. Certainty in this sense is similar to incorrigibility, which is the property a belief has of being such that the subject is incapable of giving it up. But psychological certainty is not the same thing as incorrigibility.” Ref

“A belief can be certain in this sense without being incorrigible; this may happen, for example, when the subject receives a very compelling bit of counterevidence to the (previously) certain belief and gives it up for that reason. Moreover, a belief can be incorrigible without being psychologically certain. For example, a mother may be incapable of giving up the belief that her son did not commit a gruesome murder, and yet, compatible with that inextinguishable belief, she may be tortured by doubt. A second kind of certainty is epistemic. Roughly characterized, a belief is certain in this sense when it has the highest possible epistemic status. Epistemic certainty is often accompanied by psychological certainty, but it need not be. It is possible that a subject may have a belief that enjoys the highest possible epistemic status and yet be unaware that it does. In such a case, the subject may feel less than the full confidence that her epistemic position warrants. I will say more below about the analysis of epistemic certainty and its relation to psychological certainty. Some philosophers also make use of the notion of moral certainty.” Ref

“For example, in the Latin version of Part IV of the Principles of Philosophy, Descartes says that “some things are considered as morally certain, that is, as having sufficient certainty for application to ordinary life, even though they may be uncertain in relation to the absolute power of god”. Thus characterized, moral certainty appears to be epistemic in nature, though it is a lesser status than epistemic certainty. In the French version of this passage, however, Descartes says that “moral certainty is certainty which is sufficient to regulate our behaviour, or which measures up to the certainty we have on matters relating to the conduct of life which we never normally doubt, though we know that it is possible, absolutely speaking, that they may be false”. Understood in this way, it does not appear to be a species of knowledge, given that a belief can be morally certain and yet false. Rather, on this view, for a belief to be morally certain is for it to be subjectively rational to a high degree. Although all three kinds of certainty are philosophically interesting, it is epistemic certainty that has traditionally been of central importance. In what follows, then, I shall focus mainly on this kind of certainty.” Ref

“In general, every indubitability account of certainty will face a similar problem. The problem may be posed as a dilemma: when the subject finds herself incapable of doubting one of her beliefs, either she has good reasons for being incapable of doubting it, or she does not. If she does not have good reasons for being unable to doubt the belief, the type of certainty in question can be only psychological, not epistemic, in nature. On the other hand, if the subject does have good reasons for being unable to doubt the belief, the belief may be epistemically certain. But, in this case, what grounds the certainty of the belief will be the subject’s reasons for holding it, and not the fact that the belief is indubitable. A second problem for indubitability accounts of certainty is that, in one sense, even beliefs that are epistemically certain can be reasonably doubted. According to a second conception, a subject’s belief is certain just in case it could not have been mistaken—i.e., false. Alternatively, the subject’s belief is certain when it is guaranteed to be true. This is “truth-evaluating” sense of certainty. As with the claim of knowing that a proposition is certain, which entails that such a proposition is a true proposition or the claim of knowing is inacurate. Certainty is, significantly stronger than lesser forms of knowledge.” Ref

Atheism for me was a life freeing revelation as it was only after 35 that I became an atheist. Thus it was indeed a new awakening to self-mastery after a life of mental slavery to religion and the terroristic god damning me at birth in an original sin mindset.

If you are a religious believer, 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?

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.

We atheists and anti-religionists care to inform our fellow humans who have been lied to.
Thus, we ethically must challenge the ones that are lying to others and often forcing religion on children by 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.

As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist.

As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe.

There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god.

Therefore, as a theist, things of the world where not that amazing. However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in supermassive black holes, it’s all amazing.

Atheist Activism Training #1: Know You, Know Your Motivations and Understand Others

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

All Ideas above written by Damien Marie AtHope

Epistemically Rational Beliefs

Being Epistemically Rational

Definition of epistemic, of or relating to knowledge or knowing

Certainty: “I know” vs “I believe”

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

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

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest