“The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)  We may be highly evolved but we are still just emotional thinking animals with a thinking strategy called “reason” we only sometimes use.

I like to think in terms of replacing the claimed term “god” with the term “nothing”, as in that is what they have to prove god and its an answer to most of there questions. How do you think the universe was created? = by “nothing” as in “nothing” intelligent made all this and “nothing” moral is ruling everything and “nothing” flooded the entire earth. lol

The Four Scientific Meanings Of ‘Nothing’ (click to read more on these)

1.) A time when your “thing” of interest didn’t exist.  

2.) Empty space.  

3.) Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible.  

4.) Whatever you’re left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it.  ref 

“Not a god that judges us” – Commenter  

My Response, So you are saying there is some God-something, just not one that judges?

“Damien AtHope no I’m saying that there is a law that everything works with in the boundaries of every action has a reaction.” – Commenter 

My Response, Are you referring to Newton’s third law or something else? Please clarify more? “Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.” ref

“Exactly and god and religion is a human construct….. but I do believe that there is a universal consciousness That connects us.” – Commenter  

My Response, What do you mean by that?

“Damien AtHope thought that would grab ya ????……….. I do not think there is a god that judges us I think that is on us , but I feel we give off Energy in the form of frequencies , auras what ever you wish to call it that gives us all a connection like what the elders or the shamans , ancient ones would always say that we are all one , but that is just my thoughts on it . I’m glad you responded back thought I lost ya ……. peace.” – Commenter

My Response, What do you mean by we give off Energy in the form of frequencies, auras whatever you wish to call it? Please fully explain your thoughts on this specifically and why you believe this? Do you believe this is scientifically supported, if so how? If not how sure are you about this belief and what could convince you otherwise? And What do you think others would need to believe as you do, evidence or faith?

“First off I respect you and your beliefs and agree with a lot of them, now my belief is my belief I do not need evidence or support to prove it and that is because it is mine I do not have a need to convince anyone to prove that it is correct my knowing of how I feel things are is pure and idiotic not try to convince anyone that I am right I truly don’t think anyone has the whole truth or knowledge of how things actually work but we all have an idea of how we think things are I feel we all feel love is a powerful force and we should work from that of consciousness……..  I know what you believe is truly from your heart and I honor your belief but it’s not totally mine .. peace.”  There are a couple of words that did not come out right “ damn phone” but I sure you get what I’m saying.” – Commenter  

My Response, So you are saying you have a faith belief on faith you wish to profess openly on my page but don;t feel any burden of proof is attached to it as you are admitting it is your chosen belief not built on evidence and while you state it openly on my page you are not expecting anyone to take it serious as it is limited to your faith of which they cannot not nor need not value as truth? And for me I strive to respect people but as for beliefs I only respect them if they are demonstrable as having warrant or sound justification to do so.

“Did not know I needed a burden of proof.” – Commenter

My Response, “When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.” ref

And a “burden of proof fallacy occurs when claiming that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. People who use the burden of proof fallacy often make claims that are not falsifiable, meaning that they can’t be proven wrong, and then ask others to disprove those claims, a task which is inherently impossible.” ref

“The burden of proof is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for any arguments that you make. Accordingly, the burden of proof fallacy occurs when someone claims that they don’t have a burden of proof with regards to their own arguments, or when someone attempts to shift their own burden of proof to someone else.” ref

In general, there are three main types of statements, some of which require a burden of proof, and some of which do not:

• An assertion carries a burden of proof. If you clearly assert that a certain statement is true, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, meaning that you must either prove that your assertion is true, or retract it.
• A presumption carries a conditional burden of proof. If you ask someone to presume that a certain statement is true, then you don’t necessarily have a burden of proof with regards to that presumption, unless your opponent questions it, at which point you must either prove that your presumption is true or retract it, as is the case with an assertion.
• An assumption carries no burden of proof. If you simply assume that a certain statement could be true, but don’t claim that this is necessarily the case, then you have no burden of proof. However, note that if you rely on your assumptions too much in the argument, or if your assumptions are perceived as too unlikely, they will end up weakening your argument, especially if they are challenged by your opponent. ref

“Overall, the burden of proof fallacy can appear in various forms, and can be combined with different strategies, such as attributing your statements to a secondary source, or denying direct responsibility for your statements. The one thing that all forms of the burden of proof fallacy have in common is that the person using this fallacy is either avoiding their own burden of proof, or is attempting to shift their burden of proof to someone else.” ref

“Love is universal. All life is connected. – Commenter 

My Response, Do you mean, through genetics and a shared common descent evolutionarily and in a lesser extent environmental biosphere/ecosphere way is that what you mean? If more please explain?

Marquis Amon “Technically he is right, we give off radiation by merely existing, everything in the universe does that is above 0 centrigrade if I recall. Electromagnetic radiation in particular in the infrared spectrum… I just don’t see how it makes any useful claim. 😛 Sorry, this is the best I can do to help this guy lol. I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more than me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regard it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really known or knowable or coherently define-able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.” God does not exist because we can not attribute anything in reality to god or unicorn. Or square circle triangle for that matter. We need observed phenomena that is unique, People say we have to have evidence to disprove god, but god in reality is meaningless and demonstratably non-existent. That is because naturalism disproves god by process of elimination. By the way, I meant no disrespect to you or the commenter, just that while the statement can be true, it would be like saying things in the universe contain atoms, and that they contain charges. Yes, but it is not very relevant to the discussion.” 

My response, Marquis Amon, I didn’t take it as anything but you being thoughtful and forthright as always.

Marquis Amon “True, but my sense of humor can rub people the wrong way. I know you get my humor, just that some do not appreciate it in formal discussion. To be clear, I am just unsure if it could be misinterpreted. Considering feelings and the approach regarding social acceptable interaction. It is your page and wish to engage everyone politely, though aim to make it fun.”

My response, Marquis Amon, There you go being thoughtful again and why I both like and respect you. You are an honest honorable thinker.

Ps. Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible. Ignosticism or igtheism (desire a good, well defined and supported ontology), basically as a philosophic position (rationalism, if one is addressing a mental aspect or claim and empiricism, if one is addressing a real-world aspect or claim) concludes the belief in (Ignosticism in this lack of belief/disbelief is atheism) or a possibility of (Ignosticism in this lack of “a possibility of” is using an Ethics of Belief, justificationism, reliabilism and anti-agnosticism) a supernatural being, ultimate (gods) or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Ignostic Atheist? https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/05/07/ignostic-atheist/ 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I believe critical thinkers and thinkers who are intellectually honest should follow something close to “The Ethics of Belief” or they are likely not honest thinkers.

“The Ethics of Belief” was published in 1877 by philosopher William Kingdon Clifford outlined the famous principle “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Arguing that it was immoral to believe things for which one lacks evidence, in direct opposition to religious thinkers for whom “blind faith” (i.e. belief in things in spite of the lack of evidence for them) was seen as a virtue. Ref Ref

Intellectual honesty:  “We have a moral duty to be honest and “Intellectual Honesty” combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others. Intellectual Honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression. Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The Valued of Good Belief Etiquette

Beliefs should be open to revision and should have been scrutinized before believing to start with or to continue holding. Thus, it can be said that sound justified or warranted beliefs need valid and reliable reason and evidence or likely should not be believed or reevaluated before they are kept as one’s belief. May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.

To me, it comes down to the question, would you be intellectually honest enough to want to know if your belief was completely false? And once knowing it was an unjustified belief, realize it lacks warrant and the qualities needed for belief-retention, as well as grasp the rationality that compels belief-relinquishment due to the beliefs insufficient supporting reason and evidence. The act of believing, just because one wants to believe when everything contradicts the belief is intellectually unethical or deluded. Beliefs are directly connected to behavior, a behavior is directly involved in ethics, and ethics requires involvement in social thinking which requires us to mature or discipline our beliefs.

A common flawed belief of theists is “You can’t have morals without god” or “You can’t have morality without religion.” It would seem to be a belief of theists to conclude that for one to care about morality it can only be because a god exists, believing that a god/religion is and knows all good, and atheists or nonreligious cannot know good. You cannot appeal to our morality and then say we do not have morality. Likewise, you cannot appeal to your moral superiority and then demonstrate errors in following intellectual honesty thus a sound morality. Most theists like to act as if only they have morality and then presuppose atheist intellectual honesty or try to inspire atheist intellectual honesty thus believing atheists either have or can easily know good/morality. This is clearly evident in how theists/religionists question atheists about naturalism, the limits of scientific knowledge, or epistemology knowledge. In general, believing they can conquer us atheists by getting us to agree we can’t be 100% sure of all things.

However, in doing so they know they can appeal to our atheist intellectual honesty and thus godless knowledge of good, but by doing so they have conceded to atheist morality even without realizing it. In addition, atheists often wrongly assume and presuppose theists will use intellectual honesty, such as that the believer is intellectually honest, when relatively all theists must, in fact, be somewhat intellectually dishonest and use faith as knowledge, justification, and certainty. This is a two-pronged part of the faith fallacy which requires atheists to be the most intellectually honest. Theists try to force an appeal to philosophic skepticism that even naturalism must be in question and then utilize the special pleading fallacy that theism does not have to appeal to philosophic skepticism, if naturalism must be questioned because theists can place supernaturalism in its place due to faith or some other nonsense, which is intellectual dishonesty.

As if what you see and can prove (naturalism) requires doubt, how much more doubt should be leveled at that which is not seen and has no proof or evidence at all (supernaturalism). Naturalism roughly involves what you see and can prove it or by empirical observation and test such through the scientific method. Naturalism’s view is mainly that natural explanations best explain or are the most valid and reliable to identify, understand, and explain all phenomena in reality without any need to resort to supernatural conclusions or purposes. Theists/religionists question atheists about naturalism, saying naturalism cannot give an adequate account of the origin of life arising from nonlife. Thus god, for some unprovable reason or argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps!? Intellectual honesty would inspire the integrity of truth to be everything, no matter if the truth devotes from one’s belief. Thus, a true champion of intellectual honesty will not allow the truth to be subject to beliefs rather the motivation would be to have beliefs that are subject to the truth.

Furthermore, intellectual honesty must follow and purposefully utilize relevant facts and information, not willfully hide or disregard things that may contradict or disprove one’s beliefs. In addition, relevant facts and information are not misused or misrepresented, to give misleading or false impressions. Without intellectual honesty, the scholars of religion would seem to be moral relativists or moral avoiders and what I must conclude are fallacy-fueled bullies placing their loved myths above Intellectual integrity. Yes, time and again the many scholars or champions of religion claim moral superiority and demonstrate nothing of the kind, instead, like the conmen before them, pushing supernatural Dogmatic-Propaganda over natural reality and preying on the ignorance of others with their intellectual dishonesty. Sadly, this seems to just be the only championed course of gods or religion because of the faith fallacy. They must invariably rely on ignorance and /or dishonesty as a means by which to exemplify their smokescreen of misdirection, lies, and wishful thinking. What needs to be understood is that the scholars or champions of religion who willfully commit fallacies such as the ones used in favor of the faith fallacy, like the special pleading fallacy or the argument from ignorance fallacy, which are forms of intellectual dishonesty.

Therefore, it all comes down to intellectual honesty and the ability to hold the same standers to one’s self as you wish others to agree to. I would explore all to have and strive to exhibit intellectual honesty, thus I dare the scholars or the champions of religion to also, be honest in the ethics of belief and let go of their intellectual dishonesty. Of course, I would rightly challenge us all to stand in the reason and evidence proven in this world, not arbitrarily adding without reason unproven claims devoid of evidence for some unproven otherworld. Can the scholars of religion move us with actual valid and reliable reason and evidence is not the question, as we already start and end with such reasoning and only wait for them to put up or shut up. So instead, the question is, will the scholars of religion show intellectual honesty do the same, start and end with actual reason and evidence that is valid and reliable in the real world, not resort back to the fallacy of faith,  which is not proof of anything.

Moreover, it could be said that for ethical atheism applied logically “to me” in general ethics must be equally applied or the concept of ethics has no ethical meaning to begin with. Ethical atheism could be seen as thinking that if the idea of god implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation against of human rights, dignity, and liberty. Therefore ethical atheism holds a necessary requirement to disbelief in order to end such unethical thinking and to end a god-only morality enslavement of mankind. Ethical atheism holds all to ethical standards therefor if god did exist, it would be necessary to abolish him so we could be freely utilize human rights, dignity, reason, and justice. Ethical atheism promotes atheism because it is both the logical and the ethical position to take in a world where religious people fly planes into skyscrapers, blow themselves up on crowded buses, and do all sorts of horrible things in the name of an imaginary sky monster.

As an atheist ethicist, I am not just an Atheist (disbelieving claims of gods), an Antitheist (seeing theism as harmful), and an Antireligionist (seeing religion as untrue and/or harmful). Also as an atheist ethicist, I value and require reason and evidence to support beliefs or propositions as well as I am against all pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and pseudomorality. Why are gods even concerned with belief, as if they truly wanted it so bad they would be real and being more than just mental projections of which they are now they would show themselves and we all would believe. Therefore we can rightly conclude with no evidence of them at all, that belief in god(s) is the thing people do when playing at reality is valued more than understanding the actual natural only nature of reality.

References 1, 2, 3

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

My Hammer of Truth (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology; three philosophies that I use methodologically) both builds and destroys: it aids in building accuracy towards truth and destroy bad claims that are untrue. Which is part of my Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates As in I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching. 

Moreover, general thinking in all “My Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology theorizing” involves some expression of  Justificationism . As in, basically, I require a worthy argument, that is justified with a good warrant(s), quality rich with valid and reliable reason and evidence that is connected to the accuracy of the truth claimed.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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)

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.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

 “The Hammer of Truth” Process

The Hammer of Truth (Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology), is my folk name for the Methodological use of Philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.

Ontology (Greek meaning ontos, “being; that which is”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. ref

Epistemology (Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. ref

Axiology (Greek meaning axia, “value, worth”; and logos meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason”) it is the philosophical study of value as well as ethics and aesthetics. Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. Axiology also studies of goodness, value or worth, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies in the unification that it has provided for the study of a variety of questions—economic, moral, aesthetic, and even logical—that had often been considered in relative isolation. ref

“Hammer of Truth” response to “Do you Believe in god?”

“The Hammer of Truth” (scientific philosophy: Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology) in action.

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

I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“The Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology”

Taking down god assertions in 123

1. What is a goD? (an ontology question)
2. How can one claim to know anything about a god? (an epistemology question)
3. How valid, good or worthy is a claim that one knows anything about a god? (an axiological question)

Mock Debate court using the “Hammer of Truth”

1. Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim.
2. Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim.
3. Axiology “Goodness-for” questions/assertion: Judge/Jury assesses and value judges because of qualities in or lacking in the claim.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Always try to follow this attack order:

*Ontology, (understanding the thingness of things; like what is or can be real, like not god)

-What is your claim?

-What aspects must be there for your claim?

-What makes your claim different than other similar claims?

*Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have and thing in this reality to know anything about this term you call god, and no way of knowing if there is anything non-naturalism beyond this universe and no way to state any about it if there where)

-How do know your claim?

-How reliable or valid must aspects be for your claim?

-How does the source of your claim make it different than other similar claims?

*Axiology, (understanding what is good or valuable as well as what is evil or unvaluable like how the stories about theist theistic gods are often racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic intersexphobic, xenophobic, etc. Thus, they are directly against humanity and thus are evil and unvaluable. Unvaluable; as in the god concept you have is evil and demonstrably harmful and thus is highly unvaluable to humanity)

-Why are your objects of proposed value subjective psychological states or objective physiological external world states for your claim?

-Why do your purposed descriptive words fit qualities for valuation (such as “powerful”, “knowing”, and “present” in the Omnipotent: all-powerful, Omniscient: all-knowing, and Omnipresent: all-present god assertion) your claim?

-Why is your value-for, worth-for, and/or goodness-for claims different than other similar claims?

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Take for instance how Religion supporters try the evaluation tactic of saying “there are peaceful Religions.”

I may respond, what do you mean by Religion and what do you mean by painful or good” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Ontology)

Then, I may respond, “how do you know that what is your sources and how reliable they are” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Epistemology)

Then, I may respond, “what value do you think what you are saying has and to what level of proof do you feel truth needs as well as how do you ensure Accuracy” (asking to find the truth or as usual expose the lack of a good Axiology)

Let’s look at the “gOD claim” with the Hammer of Truth

To me, god is a the “Presuppositional Error” it assumes unsupported oncology assumptions. First, truly what is a god and how can you claim to know about it? Guessing is not evidence, neither is wild, unfounded assertions that are written in reality devoid documents such as holy books. Atheists do not have to prove that gods do not exist, as gods have never been proven to exist. Nor is there any good reason to think they could exist! In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.

Let me explain why as an axiological atheist (value theory atheist) even the belief in the concept of god is ethically vile to me. God belief is inherently immoral to me it is the belief that supports an all-powerful being who willfully allows suffering, something that no ethical person would tolerate if they had the ability to do otherwise. Moreover, a common attribute of god belief is support of this claimed greater being of high intelligence and self will forcing its will and standards on other beings of high intelligence and self-will. This force is unethical and abusive to the rights of humanity. Furthermore, many who subscribe to this force abusive relationship god claim an even more revolting ethical atrocity called hell where eternal horror and suffering is dished out by direct will of the claimed stronger immoral god being against the defenseless undeserving subjugated humanity. Thus, being one, who values rights and ethics, it sickens me to even speak of such willful misconduct of justice. Your god concept is vile… (axiology value judgment).

The god claim is like a clown car rolling in from out of nowhere and it seems like it is only one or possibly a few bad ideas, but no. No, it is a dark festival that masquerades as truth but it is only an evil funhouse of mirrors that distorts reality. The term god is an empty meaningless term and if it was not for man-made myths or wild speculations which are usually the misinterpretations of nature, no one would claim to know what a god is or could be. Unless one falls back to the circus of fallacies in the magic big top of fideism and the faith fallacy that you do not need anything but faith to validate, justify, or prove any mystical belief you so desire.

The God Fallacy is that there is no epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence for god(s) existence; most ideas offered are stretches of unreason promoting seemingly implausible knowledge or reality claims. Moreover, beyond this is the self-evident realization that there is no reliable and /or verifiable evidence that could be used to define what god term actually is or could be assured to involve. Because it is never good to just randomly conceptualize or fabricate from bias trying to force connections into existence. epistemically warranted or justifiably reliable evidence or even a preset of proofs that do not hold gaps a believer want to fill with an arbitrary beliefs things need a god explanation and yet again what does god even mean. One his furthered nothing with god talk until they offer clear links to understand what could rightly make up the empty term g. o. d. (Group Originated Delusion).

Any reasonable thinker should conclude that clear links to any knowledge are required to comprehend what to ask, where to look, or what to state is involved. This would seem especially important since what is on the line is the actual truth or falsehood of the great believed “IT” of somethingism. Do you wish to just assemble or make up your god thinking as you go, greedily forcing anything that seems slow enough to not get away or is the actual truth in reality you seek even if godless as finding the true is the main pursuit, as your aim is what true right, taken with the deepest integrity? One should desire such intellectual rigor in order to even distinguish if we need to inquire or have a way to question a possibility of existence, as this empty termed “it” god of nothingism is unknown in every way even in its, “it” status outside of faith superstitions, Dogmatic–Propaganda, delusion, myths and lies.

ref

Religion is just Dogmatic–Propaganda, such as how it is wrong to start with full belief built only upon faith: then search and anything unknown, claiming it somehow justifies or is evidence for their specific God Fallacy.

Another attribute of the God Fallacy is that believers seem to insinuate, if they can in anyway demonstrate (even the possibility of a thing that could seem to be a something attributed to a god) then they have proved that the god they believe in is true. And yet is it not true that man will always fail to prove a specific god? Religion is big on claims but small on reasoning. Take the Abrahamic faiths; they propose a very specific, well-defined god, but in reality, they advocate a very unspecified god; a naturalistic, inferred-theistic-creationism or the god of intelligent design. In other words, when pressed to demonstrate god in the world, or as the reason for the big bang, they can at best only try to surmise a magical power or unknown and unknowable possible something as the “creator.” But the question needs to asked, how does that prove any specific god? So even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that some god, phantom-menace started things, they still have to show that this god is the very same as the god in which they believe.

The truth is, for all the appeals they make to nature in order to justify their god, not one appeal is valid in any way to confirm that their god (and only their god) is true, they must always leave the facts and return to faith. Thus, these haughty theists always fail to show any naturalistic reasons for believing in their special-needs god. What they show instead is a belief, not in the god of some myth or scriptures, but belief in a projected somethingism-god attributed to nature, which is indistinguishable from a nothingism, godless reality attributed by nature. However, the issues don’t stop there, as they also would have to prove, or give warrant, as well as justification for every attribute and claimed character trait attached to their specific god using only natural arguments, not some Holy Book or otherworldly revelation.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

A Coherent Definition of god?

I am an Ignostic atheist and not only do not believe in the term gods I reject that even the term or concept of god has any real thing or true reality connected definition. To me there is no one coherent definition of god even if they think articulation proves real meaning, this proves little more than me saying someone believes in a “Triangle-Square-Circle”. To the term god I thus regard it as empty of real meaning and or real definition constancy, so I see it as something that is not really known or knowable or coherently define-able as a real object even if it can add arbitrary words to articulate it is still not something outside man-made arbitration.

One may say no the god definition is real one cannot say it is not, as most people generally know what the term god means thus that cannot be rejected. Really?? I could be misunderstanding this reasoning put against Ignostic Atheist thinking but to me it seems to hold the opinion, saying I must accept the god concept as something definable in reality because of ad populum? In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Bigfoot’s, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using Axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability. It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots:

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warranted and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

Next the Axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head):

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non-fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

And, now the Axiological validity of Gods:

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.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
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.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Disproof by logical contradiction ‘A Logical Impossibility’

(especially in reductio ad absurdum arguments)

In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction.  – Wikipedia

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.  – Wikipedia

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

No Evidence of a Loving God?

The following are some evidence against a caring god working in the world. A recent study of the current living conditions throughout Africa shows that more than one billion people do not have enough clean water to provide for their basic human needs. As a result, more than 2,500 children are dying each day. I guess it is that god gives us free will by keeping children from clean water in an unproportioned amount to the civilized science filled world. I ask you, does your god not hear their prayers?

According to Missionaries of Africa (2008), there is a water crisis and diseases that are living in dirty water are wiping out entire villages and communities. Does god exist? Does the magic chanting of prayer seem to work? Suppose for a minute with the understanding of religious believe, if there was a loving god and it answered even some prayers, would not the most deserving be the non-sinning? Moreover, what living human could be said to be less sinning than a baby and thus the most deserving. In addition, babies or children are likely the ones religionists/fideists pray most often, for when they are in trouble.

Belief changes Nothing: especially so is lacking any sound justification

Whatever circumstances you are in or not, has nothing to do with belief. If you are poor, belief does not make you not poor. If you are rich, you do not stay rich because of belief. You would think that poor people would have the benefit of the heavenly means and have god on their side, if anyone would, right? Overall, in 186 countries, first-day child death rates for babies are 6.9%. Where was god? In Angola, 8% of the babies die and 95% of the population is christian. In Congo, 7.5% of the babies die and 95.8 % of the population is christian. Whereas in Guinea-Bissau, 9% of the babies die and 10 % of the population is christian and in Niger 8.7% of the babies die and 5% of the population is christian. Therefore, being a christian and begging for an all-powerful all-loving god myth to do something that any half-decent human being would hardly even need to be asked to help an innocent child, shows that belief seems to make no difference in the world because the world is godless and sadly babies die. Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I god do all these things.” Ref

Just think, the bible god “could” have banned slavery or shellfish and he chose to ban shellfish (Leviticus 11:12) and actually support slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46) even in the new testament (Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2) and Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong (Luke 12:47-48) how crazy and immoral is that for a man-made fairy tales. I will openly say faith is foolish lacking credibility and it is stupid to hold on to beliefs that are disproved by science fact. However, I don’t usually call people names even ones saying things I believe are ridiculous nor do I belittle them instead I strive to and support attacking the thinking and not the person.

What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

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

Here are some more of my blogs that relate: 

My “Methodological Rationalism” approach

Grasping the status of truth (ontology of truth)

The Ontology of Humanistic Economics in Society?

Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings.

Psychological certainty and Epistemic certainty?

Yes, I am certain there is not any validity to the god term, thus no god.

I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.

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

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

Interview of Formal Axiological Atheist Dr. William Kelleher

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

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

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

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

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

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? The term god equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing.

Claims of god are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

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

My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you cannot validate its value. So it’s addressing a kind of justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to.

Think of is as a use-matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything.

Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or reason. – Wikipedia

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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) 

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

“I will respect your beliefs Damien after you respect mine.” – Challenger

My response, Well I don’t care if you respect or don’t respect my beliefs as your approval is not needed to validate reality.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

god Claims are a Non-Reality Commodity

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 every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?

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

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

• Pragmatic theory of truth
• Coherence theory of truth
• Correspondence theory of truth

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

One should have a belief etiquette in how they approach believing, keep believing, and letting beliefs go, or amend old beliefs, if one values Truth. And, I value reasoned Belief acquisitions, good Belief maintenance, and honest Belief relinquishment.

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, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

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