Atheist Activism Training #3: Navigate the Discussion, Control the Questions, and Turn the Argument

Atheist Activism Training #3: Navigate the Discussion, Control the Questions, and Turn the Argument: VIDEO 

 My atheist activism is a call to mental freedom for the world a champion of others self-mastery. This attempt to liberate the world is the act of kindness, to try and help free the mentally enslaved or actually, inspire them to free themselves. Sometimes a heart of kindness is all I have, my only weapon to fight for the humanity in a world which is seemly intent on harm. 

“Damien, how can you be so nice and kind?” – Questioner

My response, It is very hard indeed but it also shows high character and is to me, an act of courage to be kind in an unkind world. But I am not this world, I aspire to much greater higher heights. I reject this worlds unkindness. I fight for what is true, helpful, good and right. All themes needed for universal betterment and human flourishing. I fight for people not against them. I wish to be a friend to the world, as you can better persuade people with an open hand than angry words. I appeal to their reason as a helpful counselor, mentor, or teacher that would see their possible frustration as a thing in them, not truly a thing meant for me. I know we cannot change things with more of the same. Rather, we must be the hope and changes so profound that t is like we are no longer holding a reality position of the strife before us. This is because we have the skill to aid others, the gift of human kindness as with that we are the most effective. And to me, kindness is invaluable. I just never stop seeing others as equal dignity beings. We rise by helping each other.

“Damien, in My atheist videos, I can’t do the kind thing I watch you do in every video, which is, I never see anger from you. How can you do it?” – Questioner

My Response, I think of my goal which to help others and doing that I can better control my feelings. I do get angry often, but I strive to not express that in my behavior. I wish to be a friend to the world. It has been a life’s work, years of counseling and self-improvement. I now see the value of kindness.

If you are a religious believer on faith, 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? 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Good Belief-Etiquette = Disciplined-Rationality (addressing The Ethics of Belief)

“Belief-Etiquette” = reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment

An honest thinker would want to know what sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity is to support a belief. Beliefs should be open to revision, have been scrutinized before believing needing valid and reliable reason and evidence. But then you have most religious believers who accept beliefs with no proof at all just empty faith. Stubbornly they adhere to religious beliefs, which are either completely insufficiently proven beliefs at best and outright myths and lies otherwise. Such religious believers’ beliefs are not at all open to revision, either they are shallow thinkers that are quite flexible (meaning they do not have a standard like the ethics of belief), and just how the beliefs were acquired so to the current religious thinkers’ beliefs are unscrutinized, just as they did before believing. And faith, the mental infection of clear thinking continues over requiring a scrutinizing of all things before believing, needing valid and reliable reason and evidence.

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. May I always be a truth seeker and not a blind faith believer. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason.

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, behavior is directly involved in ethics, and ethics requires involvement in social thinking which requires us to mature or discipline our beliefs. I am not just an Atheist (disbelieving claims of gods), I am also a rationalist, valuing and requiring reason and evidence to support beliefs or propositions.

Why are gods even concerned with belief built of faith, as if they truly wanted it so bad, they would be real and being more than just mental projections that 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.

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)

Some people will be open to thoughtful “unemotional” honest discussions, if so, just start with The Hammer of Truth and/or REMS. However, others maybe combative or overly emotional and likely could be closed minded thinkers, emotional thinkers or dishonest thinkers that may take a little more work to reason with.

1. Navigate the Discussion

Often in street atheist activism it is more people wanting to challenge us than desire open explanation thus if we wish it to be educational, informative, even though changing we must approach it as a helpful teacher and not a combative opponent. The street atheist activism challenger will commonly be a theist who starts in on us in one of three main ways:

1. The Rusher (comes at you hard, fast and/or angry with simple argument attacks)

Your job is to get them desolated and thinking thoughtfully.

1. example “Why do you hate god” I may say I don’t know what you mean by god, please explain what is a god to you?

2. example “Why are you even out here as you don’t believe anything; atheism takes too much faith.” I may say I believe things with sound justifications, so please explain what a god is to you?

3. example “Atheism is arrogant. I would respect you more if you were an agnostic or at least spiritual.” I may say I am open to hearing your believed justifications, so please explain what you mean by god first?

2. The Gusher (comes at you with lengthy personal experience arguments)

Your job is to get them halted and thinking more generally. 

1. example “I have known god since I was 6 years old and have had many experiences let me tell you my life story then after you hear my testimony you will believe in wonderful my god.” I may say I okay, we can get to that, but do you believe every one of your faith thinks the same or has the same experiences?

2. example “I respect atheists, as you may have not had the many personal experiences I have had, or you would completely believe too. Here are just a few of the miracles from god that prove he is real.” I may say I am open to proof, but will you first tell me what is the common way people know something is real?

3. example “I feel for nonbelievers; I once was blind too as you have to seek god to understand and experience god to know him. Here are my experiences to help you understand his miraculous power.” I may say I understand you have personal experiences and others of different faith have similar claims, so what makes people know which are real possible proof?

3. The Crusher (comes at you with arguments to shut you down or prove you wrong)

Your job is to get them redirected and thinking more personally. 

1. example “The existence of God is true because there is no proof that the existence of God is false.” The argument from ignorance “is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true.” ref

2. example “Everything had a cause thus god is the first cause of everything, even the big bang but god is either self-caused or has no cause.” Self-causation or having no cause is Special pleading “is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Therefore, proponents introduce a “special case” or an exception to their rules.” ref

3. example “Intelligent Design, Argument from Complexity or Irreducible complexity thus things seem designed or too complex to be by chance thus god is true.” In simplest terms, this argument states that some systems are too complex to have evolved via natural selection of evolution. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, such as a non-god evolution because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. As an example, creationists use some difficult-to-explain facet of biology as “proof” of a creator. Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify offering whatever explanation one would prefer, like god did it.” ref Intelligent Design, Argument from Complexity or Irreducible complexity are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most basic and important concepts of evolution: mutations do not need to be useful for some ultimate endpoint in order to be selected, they just have to be useful or not too harmful to continued existence: it ignores the fact that evolution is nonthinking and blind.” ref

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.

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 in 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/

2. Control the Questions

Make sure that you as much as you can either are asking the questions or controlling your answers so that it makes them question what they believe. Also make short answers if possible and ending them with another question for them that makes them think or thoughtfully explain.

Regardless of a type of discusser/debater you should be a thoughtful questioner employing the “Hammer of Truth” question style.

My Hammer of Truth (i.e. ontology, epistemology, and axiology; three philosophies that I use methodologically) a hammer of truth that both builds and destroys: it aids in building accuracy towards truth and destroy bad claims that are untrue.

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.

*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.

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

We and credible thinkers should adopt rationality assumptions, as necessary constraints on interpretation, as well as practical issues in addressing methodological problems faced by: gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “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. Why is there value, validity, goodness or worthiness in a claim that one knows anything about a god? (an axiological question)

Asking the right questions:

(Ontology Question): “WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT” (explain your claimed god)

(Epistemology Question): “HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT” (justify your claimed god)

(Axiology Question): “WHY BELIEVE YOUR JUSTIFICATION” (demonstrate the VALUE: “accuracy, warrant, validity, reliability, soundness or truth” of your justification for yourclaimed god)

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.

3. Turn the Argument 

The Rational Imperative, How Does One Know Things?

I am aggressive with ideas, but I am kind to people. My motto is attack thinking not people. I do not respect religion, but I respect people. I do not believe in religion as it has a high potential for bad, but I believe in the potential for good in people. That is my style as a Firebrand Atheist that is a Humanistic Person. 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.

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)

(REMS) Reason, Evidence & Methodological Skepticism: We don’t really defend atheism, to me as much as present reason and evidence to why theism is unjustified, unwarranted and found baseless to the point that atheism is almost like a default conclusion; it is reasonable when the belief proposition of theism fails as it always will. I have been told that me challenging or correcting people’s religious falsehoods was harmful. I say, “what”, ((sarcastically)) then responded, “yes”, just like challenging or correcting people’s lies is harmful…. Well, ok it’s harmful to falsehoods keeping their unjustified persuasive power.

My style when doing atheist outreach is basically to challenge with valid and reliable reason and evidence with a “reflective equilibrium” to what appears to be, has some high likelihood of being or has some strong confirmation. The rationale of why reason is first, is because if you can’t reason with them and at times this is obviously a factor with some people, just stop as all things revolve around reason. Thus, roughly stated as rationalism (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like reason, logic, axiology, ontology and epistemology, etc.), and empiricism (which for me is reasonable use or application of things in philosophy methods or tools like evidence ie. facts like science, history, and archeology, etc.) as well as navigating all this with “methodological skepticism” is stead of (Philosophical skepticism) which is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

To me, “truth” is a value judgment presumption we place as a label on what we believe is evidence. Thus, we should be compelled to validate the warrant to believe value judgment we label as “truth” is actually supported with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

Presumptions have many forms and values (Axiology). It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them.

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

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

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.

So, when assessing belief, one should general think about justification and theCorrespondence Theory of Truth

Something claimed as labeled as true is tested in its relation to a sound justification to warrant claiming something is known or believed is justifiably deserves to be called true is just that or should be acknowledged as accurately true due to valid ad reliable 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. Addressing justificationism (something unknown is thus uncountable for accuracy requiring doubt, a lack of belief or disbelief). Theory of justification, is a (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

I like the correspondence theory of truth to analyze beliefs or statements if they are true. People may think or analyze in a similar way without knowing the term or the method as it is reasonable and uses thinking that could be equally reached by critical thinking. The difference is having a go to standard helps clarify thinking quickly with a high accuracy. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. Ref

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

My general Dialectic persuasion is a goal in all my truth seeking motivation over emotional  hijacking reactions that can cloud right thinking. In this case an emotional thinking hijacking persuasion ie. anger trying to prove I am right and/or an all out goal of winning over clear thinking truth seeking. Some people think of Dialectic as the same as the Socratic method.

“The Socratic method, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. It is a dialectical method, involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender’s point.” ref

But I don’t really follow the Socratic method, as I feel it is limited for me, it mainly is a dialectical only approach, seeking truth without persuasion. Like most dialectical approaches, It is a form of cooperative dialogue to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. But I add Rhetoric to my use of Dialectics, thus my “Dialectical Rhetoric.”

Religions have undialectical rhetoric = pseudo-truth persuasion (indoctrination of dogmatic propaganda) I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric= truth persuasion (motivational teaching)

Navigate Truth through reasoned arguments, “Dialectic or dialectics, also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. In philosophy, dialectic or dialectical method implied a methodology used for examining and cognition of philosophical objects. Dialectical methods demands the users to examine the objects in relation to other objects and to the whole system, and examine the objects within a dynamic, evolutionary environment. Dialectical method is usually contrasted with metaphysical method, which examine the objects in a separated, isolated and static environment.” ref

“The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one’s argument correct, and proving the opponent’s argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however, clear winners are frequently determined by a judge, a jury or group consensus.” ref

“The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts like “logos” or rational appeal, “pathos” or emotional appeal, and “ethos” or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience. Socrates favored truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one’s actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē (moral virtue), was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one’s life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.” ref

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Utilizing Dignity Dignity Enrichment: 1. acceptance of thinking or behavior, 2. show understanding, and 3. offer support for who and what they are.

Dignity Attacks: 1. critical challenge of thinking or behavior, 2. expose confusion or irrationalism, and 3. offer rebuttal or rebuke of who and what they are.

Here is a rough breakdown of a response to an atheist philosopher on a debate over the term “spiritual” saying to him: “good reasons” to believe in spiritual? 

(Dignity Attack)– More like a loose looking “thinking claim.”

(Dignity Attack)- You will be quite hard pressed to prove such a thing.

(Dignity Attack)- But as always I am more than ready to receive your evidence substantiation.

Or this response I said to him: 

(Dignity Attack)- Stating your education is great and still no evidence then you have training.

(Dignity Attack)- Not that you employ your philosophy education with a universal truth to all claims.

(Dignity Attack)- And I am taken back that you think you can push any claim against me without your full sound warrant… I want evidence, please?

Here is a Theist’s response to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUBmer87cSc&t=196s

“What may be known about God is plainly evident because God has made it obvious to people. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. All the convoluted arguments and slanderous words (including lots of unabashed profanity) you use pale in comparison to the overwhelming evidence of a creator God. You are doing the devil’s work, just like Matt Dillahunty, and that evil warlock Aron Ra. And you are following in the footsteps of wicked, disgusting people like Madalyn Murray O’Hair. No one can reach out to you because you have hardened your heart against God. YOU WILL BE WITHOUT EXCUSE WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE GOD.” – Theist challenger 

My response, You wasted time to say, “What may be known about God (a mysterious unknown) is plainly evident because God (a mysterious unknown) has made it obvious to people.” So, you say nothing, provide nothing, nor define nothing thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, You wasted time to say, “For since the creation of the world God’s (a mysterious unknown’s) invisible qualities–his (a mysterious unknown’s) eternal power (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown) and divine nature (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown) –have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” So, you say nothing of value like eating imaginary bubbles, provide nothing but more unknown claims for an unknown, nor define nothing but more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, You wasted time to say, “All the convoluted arguments and slanderous words you use (I see you avoid actually addressing honestly any argument I make) pale in comparison to the overwhelming evidence of a creator (a creator of what, more mysterious unknown) God (a mysterious unknown).”  So, yet again you say nothing of value as if you don’t know you hold a burden of proof, provide nothing but more unknown claims for an unknown, nor define nothing but more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, You wasted time to say, “You are doing the devil’s (a mysterious unknown’s) work (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown), just like Matt Dillahunty, and that evil warlock (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown) Aron Ra.” And, yet again, you say nothing of value as if you don’t know what intellectual honesty is in relation to not doing fallacies and how you should make good arguments. No, you provided nothing but more unknown claims for an unknown, nor define nothing but more as before yet more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense. In addition, to how you don’t address even one of my arguments you similarly avoid honest thinking of addressing what you think are errors in any specific arguments Matt Dillahunty, and Aron Ra may express or hold.

My response, You wasted time to say, “And you are following in the footsteps of wicked (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown), disgusting people (How is it you are defining this use of the term as it is again an over generalization) like Madalyn Murray O’Hair (What about her specifically do you hold is in error and how is it you justify this?) As before yet more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, You wasted time to say, “No one can reach out to you (you never tried you talked at me not with me and how you talked at me lacked intellectual honesty) because you have “hardened your heart” (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown) against God (a mysterious unknown you say nothing valuable about, provided nothing for other than meaningless unknown generalizations, nor did you even attempt to honestly define anything of intellectual value about the god-something you claim). As seems your favored style, yet more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, You wasted time to say, “YOU WILL BE WITHOUT EXCUSE (whatever that means, more mysterious unknown) WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE GOD.” (whatever that means, yet more mysterious unknown about a mysterious unknown you say nothing valuable about, provided nothing for other than meaningless unknown generalizations, nor did you even attempt to honestly define anything of intellectual value about the God-something you claim ) Again as seems your favored style, yet more sloppy generalization terms without real meaning thus lack value just rhetoric circular reasoning nonsense.

My response, What do you mean by god?

Attacking the Person?

Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. I strive to attack thinking and not people, but I sometimes may use dignity attacks or character attacks about behavior or thinking people are doing. I only say things they can quickly fix or change. Then I will pressure them to change it. My point in doing this is help mirror the bad or errored thinking or behavior so they can change if they wish I try to never do it to hurt anyone as I see this as not a productive and potentially abusive.

However, if I only spend my time pointing fingers, have I not wasted times I could have also offered helping hands. Thus, even though somethings things need to be harshly pointed out so too is there a need to be involved in the benefit of helping where we can. May my drive to help not be somehow silenced just because there is a need to fight all that is wrong. I want to thank everyone throughout my life that have treated me with compassion and kindness. From something as simple as a smile or comforting word, to things that create impacts so big they were life-altering; you have written with the pen of love across my heart and have helped me be a person who strives to also show and treat others with compassion as well as kindness. I do not respect faith, I respect people. I value the sanctity of “rights” of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say, attack thinking not people. We who truly value ourselves and others can and do make a better world. May we together fill the world with this shining example of humanity.

When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity. We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to a person’s “human rights” is an attack to the value and worth of a dignity being.

Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seek connection. What will you do? Here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity.  Dignity involves the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world. A violation of one’s dignity as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being it is done to. I am a mutualistic thinker and to me we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings.

Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition.

Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them.

To further discuss my idea of  “dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and the being’s dignity feels honored or honoring others as well as in helping. Both self-helping and other helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are social animals, usually, we cannot fully flourish with our dignity, if we harm or hurt others.

Thus, dignity sensitivity is emotionally needed for other dignity beings and that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.

The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth.

Dignity is often surmised and similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants.

“Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.

Ethics before Ego

Ego is an emotional reaction and the emotion of fear is what underpins the emotional ego threat response. This emotional fear-vulnerability stimuli in ego connects to feelings that inspire the protective emotional response of anger. Thus, men show that through ego they are highly emotional.

“Damien, How would you define ethics?” – Questioner

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

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

All Ideas above written by Damien Marie AtHope 

• Damien AtHope: Atheist-Humanist Philosopher, Activist & Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher at damien.marie.athope.com
• Shayna AtHope: Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, & Secularist-Humanist

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

*Atheist Activism Training #2: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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