Banned from Facebook, due to my Radical out Atheist and Political Activism

LinkedIn and Instagram as well as Facebook all permanently Banned me.

I was permanently removed from Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. I am surprised I still am allowed to post on Twitter. I am sure that they just forgot… lol

I started as an activist in 2006, after turning atheist in college due to facts, and stopped around 15 years later on 12/18/21. Now I teach as outreach.

From my direct email:

“A short question. Did you leave LinkedIn? I miss you, cannot find your page anymore! Is everything alright with you?” – Person-One

My response, Thanks for your support and concern. You can if interested check out some of my videos on YouTube or some of my few hundred blog posts on my website. They important are, and at least they are still up.

“Send to you best regards. All the best Damien!” – Person-One

“Dear Damien, a friend give me your e-mail because I contact her after your likes and comments disappeared from my post yesterday, and I couldn’t find you on LinkedIn, nor you answer me after my message. I was worried that something bad had happened to you, but even I am very sorry and miss you on LinkedIn, I glad you are good and healthy, what is the most important. usually, as you know, from some time not speak very much, after my tragedy, but you are my very dear friend, I have big respect for you, so I asked for the email to contact you, and now I do it for myself, I am sorry if I go too much in yo your privacy, but I was really worried. I am also sorry it happen with LinkedIn as well but hope you will come back soon. Have a nice evening, dear Demien. Take care, stay healthy and safe.” – Person-Two

My response, I appreciate your care and support but they think my thinking is too extreme, so, I may never be let back… Sorry, I miss you as well.

“Thank you for your website, I am sorry for LinkedIn, really. I will never forget that you were the first who loved and recognized my painting for what they are and a lot of things on/in my painting that still no one has never did, and never will understand. I appreciate it so much, and I am grateful for you are my friend. I am on Instagram also, so maybe you would like to be there, too… Anyhow, have a beautiful evening, my dear friend.” – Person-Two

Here is what I see on Facebook:

Here is what I see on LinkedIn:

Would we not often do better lighting a candle, than cursing at the darkness?

We need people with the height of bravery, to be openly as kind as others openly hate.

I strive to be a good human ethical in both my thinking and behaviors thus I strive to be:

Anti-racist, Anti-sexist, Anti-homophobic, Anti-biphobic. Anti-transphobic, Anti-classist, Anti-ablest, Anti-ageist, and as Always Antifascist!

In fact, I want to strive to avoid as much as I can bigoted thinking towards others based on their perceived membership or classification based on that person’s perceived political affiliation (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), sex/gender, beliefs (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), social class (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), age, disability, religion (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), sexuality (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), race, ethnicity, language (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), nationality, beauty, height, occupation (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), wealth (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics), education, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics (Well: within reason, justice, and ethics).

Although, I am a “very”, yes, VERY strong atheist, antitheist as well as antireligionist, My humanity is just as strong and I value it above my disbeliefs. My kind of people are those who champion humanity, the one’s who value kindness, love justice, and support universal empowerment for all humans, we are all equal in dignity, and all deserve human rights, due self-sovereignty.

I started just writing quotes of wisdom, but not many read boring text… So, I saw I needed to go where the people were at, the ones that I was trying for anyway. I made memes art, videos, blogs, or anything I could think of to do all I can for as many as I can. Blood on the hands of the claimed upper classes.
I am for the people, the general public, desiring to help all I can, with all I am, giving them thinking for free, that have been locked up in collages or the minds of those who wish to stay elite. I am a freedom fighter and I want power back where it belongs, in the hands, of the so-called average people.
We are all an equal humanity, even I am a nothing, a no one, just one of the whole, which we all must care about if we want true human-flourishing, and if it must, let it start with me. May I be a true person of value, an honorable human, just another, a fellow dignity-being.
I want to make something clear as I can, as simple as I can, even though I classify Animism (animated and alive from Latin: anima, ‘breath, spirit, life‘ or peoples’ “spiritual” or “supernatural” perspectives. Potentially, in some animism perceives, all things may relate to some spiritual/supernatural/non-natural inclinations, even a possible belief that objects, places, and/or creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence, and/or thinking things like all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and perhaps even words— could be as animated and alive ref) as the first expression of religious thinking or religion, it is not less than, nor is it not equal to any other religion or religious thinking. I see all religious people as at least animists any way, so everyone is at least animist, how could it be less than. Animism, +? is what I think about all that say they are spiritual or religious in thinking. Regardless if they know it, understand it, or claim it, they all, to me , an animistic-thinker, plus a paganistic, totemistic, and shamanistic-monotheist, calling themselves a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as an example of my thinking. Animism (is the other-then-reality thinking relates to, thus is is in all such non-reality thinking generally.
Furthermore, I actually am impressed by animist cultures in Africa, others have seen them as primitive or something, help with that, they are revolutionaries with women’s rights, child rights. I mean if I had to choose a religion it would be animism only like in Africa so I don’t look down on them nor any indigenous peoples, who I care about, as well as I am for humanity for all. I challenge religious Ideas and this is not meant to be an attack on people, but rather a challenge to think or rethink ideas, I want what is actually true. May we all desire a truly honest search for what is true even if we have to update what we believe or know.
I class religious thinking in “time of origin” not somehow that any are better or worse or more reasoned than others. No, I am trying to help others understand how things happened, so they understand, and for themselves can finally think does the religion they say they believe in, still seems true, as they believed before learning my information and art. I am hoping I inspire freedom of thought and development of heart as well as mind as we need such a holistic approach in our quest for a humanity free for all and supportive of all. Until then, train your brain to think ethically. We are responsible for the future, we are the future living in the present soon to be past so we must act with passion as life is over just like that. I am just another fellow dignity being.

Here are a few of what I see as “Animist only” Cultures:

“Aka people” Central African nomadic Mbenga pygmy people. PRONUNCIATION: AH-kah

“The Aka people are very warm and hospitable. Relationships between men and women are extremely egalitarian. Men and women contribute equally to a household’s diet, either a husband or wife can initiate divorce, and violence against women is very rare. No cases of rape have been reported. The Aka people are fiercely egalitarian and independent. No individual has the right to force or order another individual to perform an activity against his or her will. Aka people have a number of informal methods for maintaining their egalitarianism. First, they practice “prestige avoidance”; no one draws attention to his or her own abilities. Individuals play down their achievements.” ref

“Mbuti People”

“The Mbuti people are generally hunter-gatherers who commonly are in the Congo’s Ituri Forest have traditionally lived in stateless communities with gift economies and largely egalitarian gender relations. They were a people who had found in the forest something that made life more than just worth living, something that made it, with all its hardships and problems and tragedies, a wonderful thing full of joy and happiness and free of care. Pygmies, like the Inuit, minimize discrimination based upon sex and age differences. Adults of all genders make communal decisions at public assemblies. The Mbuti people do not have a state, or chiefs or councils.” ref

“Hadza people”

“The Hadza people of Tanzania in East Africa are egalitarian, meaning there are no real status differences between individuals. While the elderly receive slightly more respect, within groups of age and sex all individuals are equal, and compared to strictly stratified societies, women are considered fairly equal. This egalitarianism results in high levels of freedom and self-dependency. When conflict does arise, it may be resolved by one of the parties voluntarily moving to another camp. Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher point out that the Hadza people “exhibit a considerable amount of altruistic punishment” to organize these tribes. The Hadza people live in a communal setting and engage in cooperative child-rearing, where many individuals (both related and unrelated) provide high-quality care for children. Having no tribal or governing hierarchy, the Hadza people trace descent bilaterally (through paternal and maternal lines), and almost all Hadza people can trace some kin tie to all other Hadza people.” ref

Can we do better?

Reparations for Slavery, American Terrorism?

Reparations for Jim Crow, American Terrorism?

Reparations for Red Lining, American Terrorism?

Reparations for Lynchings, American Terrorism?

Reparations for Unarmed Shootings, American Terrorism?

Yes, I believe we should!

A Study Finds 4,000 Lynchings in Jim Crow South, Will U.S. Address Legacy of Racial Terrorism?

Such vile American-Terrorism, So horrific, I totally support reparations.

Damien Marie AtHope: Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ableism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

Atheist-Humanist Philosopher & Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher at damien.marie.athope.com

Damien Marie AtHope: Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, with schooling in Psychology (Bachelors of Arts Psychology from Ashford University) and Sociology as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Damien Promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology; advocating for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights, and Equality.

I am virtuous to the vulnerable and champion justice, so valiantly, as I have experienced the hateful lash of unkindness and wish to champion its opposite, radical kindness in an unkind world, a sigh of true bravery. It seems that there are two main types of philosophers: Thinkers and Specialists, and I have always thought of myself as a thinker.

I am an activist and teaching in public is part of that endeavor. I wish to be “Servant Leader,” it really resonated with me and is a similar desire I have as a leader hoping to add other leaders and to be a student as well wanting to be a life learner open to expand and learn as well as put forth efforts to teach. I dig good people who are kind and want to help others, like me; together we will aid in building a flourishing humanity, we rise by helping each other. I like that kind of people as contacts they are helping make the world better as I try to do.

I create art, memes, quotes, writings, blogs, Facebook pages & groups, YouTube videos, and Public speaking events and/or activism events. Also, I create video chats with Intelligent/thoughtful people who are kind and are doing good things in the world as well as video chats with atheists or non-theists of course; to share ideas, debate/dialog, or for empowerment. And I create videos with theists or agnostics to share ideas, debate/dialog, or provide a place for learning/teaching.

I am a writer working on a book studying/researching the prehistory of the evolution of religion through archaeology and anthropology. Which to me starts back to at least 300,000 years ago with pre-animism, then 100,000 years ago for animism, 50,000 years ago for totemism, 30,000 years ago for shamanism, 12,000 years ago for paganism, 5,000 years ago for progressed organized religion (like that in Egypt) and under 4,000 years ago for all current world religions with most around or after 2,000 years ago.

Here is my blog on that: LINK

Here are some of my most recent posts as of 4/17/21 Back to 4/22/19:

Axiology and the Morality Realms of Any Moral Reasoner’s Connections

Reasoned Axiological thinking on morality realms, of any moral reasoner’s connections, and the moral weight they could motivate or affect in any assessed or concluded valuation, they use in making an ultimate choice of behavior. The axiological Valuation approach to moral decision-making would likely use an Ecological Systems Theory modal. And in order to conceptualize “value” you need to understand the environmental contexts, five ecological systems:

Individual: Usually highest value, though for some people, family members may have the same or higher value than themself.
Microsystem: Usually the next highest value is placed with the closest relationships to an individual and encompasses interpersonal relationships and direct interactions with immediate surroundings, for example, family members or friends of friends.
Mesosystem: Usually includes close to semi-close relationships, for example, family friends or friends of friends.
Exosystem: Usually only involves things such as semi or not directly involved individuals, for example, people at one’s job, people at places you frequent, then moving out and lessening in assessed value as it goes to further removed or extended networks of connectedness or relatedness. Such as the likely value distinctions in the value of the people in one’s city, the people in one’s state, the people in one’s geographic location, region, and/or county, then their perceived home or chosen country.
Macrosystem: Usually involving all other people outside their likely value distinctions in the value of the people in one’s city, the people in one’s state, the people in one’s geographic location, region, and/or county, then their perceived home or chosen country. Others not often even acknowledged or if assess generally not as favored as the known. As we seem to hold a tendency to overreact with fear at the different or unknown or even the unfamiliar. What we don’t understand, we come to fear. What we fear we learn to hate and often what we hate we seek to destroy. Thus, for clear thinking and ultimately good acting, we should fight such destructive fear. This area of connectedness relates to its farthest possible extent involving the entire world.

I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard, Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right-reason (Sound reasoning) is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics, and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable, and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Soundness

“In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. Soundness also has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein logical systems are sound if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system. In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.” ref

An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism:

“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Because of the logical necessity of the conclusion, this argument is valid; and because the argument is valid and its premises are true, the argument is sound. However, an argument can be valid without being sound. For example: “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.” This argument is valid because, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the first premise is false. Not all birds can fly (penguins, ostriches, kiwis etc.) For an argument to be sound, the argument must be valid and its premises must be true.” ref

The soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence that is provable in that deductive system is also true on all interpretations or structures of the semantic theory for the language upon which that theory is based. In symbols, where S is the deductive system, L the language together with its semantic theory, and P a sentence of L: if ⊢S P, then also ⊨L P.” ref

Strong soundness

“Strong soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence P of the language upon which the deductive system is based that is derivable from a set Γ of sentences of that language is also a logical consequence of that set, in the sense that any model that makes all members of Γ true will also make P true. In symbols where Γ is a set of sentences of L: if Γ ⊢S P, then also Γ ⊨L P. Notice that in the statement of strong soundness, when Γ is empty, we have the statement of weak soundness.” ref

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Right-(SOUND)-Reason: is reasoning to the highest soundness available.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naïve realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

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

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

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

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”

My response, We give value, as value is an awareness and judgment, it is an emergent property of validation; the ability to use critical thinking and logic in a useful way, to conclude worth, benefit, or good.

I am the “one” you have been waiting for. I am will to power, a deep thought so true it has taken flight to the lofty aspirations dreamed for and a care transmitted to offer hope to humanity. I believe in you and will strive to champion you with all I have for you are so worthy… I am that freak of nature, a power from the anti-power crusaders, warring against the power dynamic to return it back where it belongs- the hands of the people. I am a free-thinking invader into the shell of malignancy infecting humanity which strangles reason out of the world. A proud anarchy theorist, I breathe the fire of the heathens, a thought revolutionary and mental freedom fighter. I am a humanist atheist who desires a better world for us all, one that is kinder, more just, and more rational in its pursuits.

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

*Philosophic Axiology (Value Theory)

*Scientific Axiology (Formal Axiology)

Axiological atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument-driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism. The valuations move up the latter as the levels of evaluation is made to value judge all the elements to better understand the value or disvalue available to reach the most accurate valuation reasonable with a sound aware value conciseness. Axiological atheism can be thought to involve Ethical Atheism. Below shows the 7 axiological atheism argument flow to show the value layers and my thoughts on it:

1. Apatheism: we are born and by the fact reality is devoid of magic removes theological desires to understand the obvious naturalistic world, until we learn otherwise. (a “presumptive-value” failure, thus no motivation to adequately start the evaluation needed to understand if there is real value for an Axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value2. Ignosticism: Sees theological arguments and language as equivocation, contradictory, and/or un-cognitively relatable other than emotionalism or the like. I see Ignosticism as using the Theological non-cognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging). As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s).As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. (again a “presumptive-value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

3. Atheism: How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality. May I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them.We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness / thingness / attributes / qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness /thingness / attributes/ qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness / thingness / attributes/ qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities in every detail like all things have if they are real.Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist. As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe. There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god. Therefore, as a theist things where not that amazing.However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in super-massive black holes, it’s all amazing. There is no evidence for Gods. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous.Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief. (yet again a “presumptive value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing not the cognitively meaningful claims relatable to reality that must be attached to all magic and gods claims for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

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

5. Antireligionism: Not just Atheist, axiological atheists should be antitheists but this generally will involve anti-religionism. it would generally thus hold anti-religionist thinking. Especially, I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)!As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith?Well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe. “Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings… (And, one last time a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept and anti-theism assessment of the god show not just a lack of value but a possibly or likely harm demonstrating bot just a lack of value but a real disvalue and that includes the religions potentially removing value in an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy).

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

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

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

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

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

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

Atheists but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith”???

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

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

Axiological “Presumptive-Value”

Your god myth is an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure, and I as an Axiological (value theorist) Atheist am compelled to speak out on how 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 ethical values of the objects it increases, decreases, or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be.

“Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” ref, ref

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

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

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

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

Here are examples of theoretical philosophy subjects I delve into:

Ontology
Epistemology
Axiology
Ignosticism
Atheism
Rationalism
Antitheism
Antireligion
Anarchism
Secularism
Secular humanism
Humanism
Theories of truth
Questions on knowledge
Practical philosophy
Logic
Questions on Morality
Feminist philosophy
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of mind
Metaphysics

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)

Normative Philosophy? – Wikipedia

“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. – Wikipedia

Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. – Wikipedia

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. – Wikipedia

They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) – Wikipedia

This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. – Wikipedia

These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not to occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.” – Wikipedia

Theoretical philosophy? – Wikipedia

“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum. – Wikipedia

Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
“The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
Hammer of Truth: Investigate (ONTOLOGY), Expose (EPISTEMOLOGY), and Judge (AXIOLOGY)
Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs…
“The Hammer of Truth” Process

“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
Atheist Rationalist Talking on “TRUTH” with a Spiritualist Philosopher
Damien AtHope: Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher chats with Lisa For Truth: Origins of Religion and Anthropology of Religion
Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates
Science and the word “TRUTH”
Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
Truth is a Value (axiological) Judgment.
Why are lies more appealing than the truth?
The Battle of Truth
To Find Truth You Must First Look
Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth
I use a kind of Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion (motivational teaching)
Religion is not about truth

#rationalism #philosapgy #atheism #theism

If I only spend my life pointing fingers,

have I not missed a chance to offer helping hands?

I am for non-aggression and pro-social behaviors.

I am Unruly?

Someone out of the blue realized they did not want a king, but everyone else said don’t fight the monarchy. Well, I would have likely been that person of bravery and so can you. Can you imagine that? Do you need a master or do you want to be free?

Left vs. Right?

“Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.” ref

“Right-wing politics represents the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies. The term right-wing can generally refer to “the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.” ref

Different priorities of the left and the right, well, to me.

The right is concerned with respecting the individual against humanity, whereas the left is concerned with respecting the humanity of the individual. Or in other words, don’t care greed is good for some lucky individuals instead of care because charity is good for all individuals. The right thinks it is OK to live and not have humanity, the left thinks it is not OK to live without humanity.

Who’s America, is This?

I have an easy start to give reparations, how about making exempt from all draft or forced military service of African-Americans, if they so wish, that is. I am not speaking for them, just trying to offer a helpful idea. We can figure this out together, I mean we made it to the moon, so I am hopeful.

Why would you even want Traditional America, back?

Racism is traditional in America it was the democrat’s first, that was more racist but after the move, to civil rights, things changed, and ever since then republicans but for some seem to resist racism not many openly but some like bush jr. even though I still don’t like him. The right wants Tradicional America and that was when sexism, racism, and homophobia were terrorizing others most strongly. They look for a future of white Christian theocratic subjugation of America. I just want equality and freedom.

Proud to be Native?

I would be ok, voting to give back the entire united states to the native peoples, this land was taken from. I even look forward to it as they are way cooler than the shit show that is the American government. I know, I scared you, again. But why the indigenous peoples of this land are pretty great. I mean do you think they would have started two world wars or promote scum the likes of Trump?

“So, if we give them back the entire US, where do we go?” – Questioner

Damien Marie Athope “I think I am good, maybe others should start supporting, our native brothers and sisters. Or maybe, Onto reservations. Let’s hope they treat us better than we have treated them.”

“So, when we say “Land Back”, we mean returning the land to indigenous care, and to abolish extractive economies that harm the land and the people. We have seen the destruction capitalism allows when extractive markets go unchecked on indigenous lands. We’ve seen what happens when indigenous methods of land management that have been practiced for millennia are ignored.” – Questioner z

Damien Marie Athope “That sounds reasonable enough for me. So yeah.”

“I’ll be willing to give “reparations” when you show me someone who was a slave in the 1860s and is alive today.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie Athope “Well, after we give it all back to the native peoples, you can ask them.”

“uh-huh… Sure. So where are you going to move when you get your wish? And again, you’re pushing the “sins of the father” bullshit that Christians roll out when it is convenient.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie Athope “You may want to bring this up, after the native peoples get the land.”

“You still haven’t answered my question. Where are you going to go? I can say I’ve been adopted into a few native families. And I’ve experienced blatant racism coming from natives as well. So you’re going to have to elaborate a little more than “give it back.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie Athope “I am hoping, they let me stay and give me a better deal on rent then the capitalists but I often want the best of humanity to always shine.”

“Those who survived the internment camps during WW2, sure. But I don’t see a reason for paying people money based on their skin color. Maybe you’d prefer that line in the Bible about the sins of the father and mother passing to their children.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie Athope “Great, so you agree to give back the land. I am so happy to hear this.”

“Sure. Show me a native person who was roaming the continent in the last 100 years as their ancestors did. Keep in mind that horses are an imported species. Not to mention the numerous court cases that various tribes have won over the years that we are already paying billions for. And again, you’re pushing the “sins of the father” line.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie AthopeTim Cooper “You should bring this up with them I bet they will give you a fair chance. But if not, I am thinking of going to Siberia those people are cool and I think we may get along well. Where are you planning on going if you get labeled an illegal alien?”

“An again, I wish you the best of luck.” – Questioner x

Damien Marie Athope “I appreciate your support. We rise by helping each other. I also think it is good that we think about hard questions.”

Ps. While I realize that we can’t just give it “all back”, our hearts should be willing to give back all we can or at least do all we can to support the indigenous people of the Americas. And this is a moral duty to me, that we have to actively work to challenge past, current, and future harms to change this continuing shame of inhumanity. We are all responsible to be better than how we were raised, especially if we live here in America.

I was born in Long Beach, southern California in 1971

I would take on the emotional weight of the world, just to save one child from abuse.

If the only rights you fight for are your own then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights. Be a good human who is kind! We need you…

America cannot be great again for African Americans because it has yet to be great for them in America, to begin with.

Cops ARE just administrating the Pistol Politics of RIGHTISM! Rightist Racism!

Watch that Noise?

As I am a deep thinker with a mind so headstrong. I can’t seem to turn it off so how I, “Meditate or clear my mind, is to use music, but not just any music workes, no, it has to be hard as hell and loud as hell. then I achieve enlightenment and bliss. So, it is only hard pounding and screaming that I feel peace and tranquility as my mind is not able to compete with the throbbing beats. Here is an example of what works: Click

U.N. shares Antifa flag, expresses “profound concern” over U.S. labeling group domestic terrorists

“The United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) posted the flag of Antifa on their official Twitter account Friday, along with an expression of solidarity after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to this militant far-left group as domestic terrorists.” ref

The intergovernmental organization tweeted, along with the image of the Antifa flag:

“UN #HumanRights experts express profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing #Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country.” ref

“At some point on Saturday following intense backlash, the U.N. deleted the tweet.” ref

On May 31, Attorney General William Barr released a statement labeling Antifa “domestic terrorists.” On the same day, President Trump tweeted “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” ref

We rise by helping each other.

May the song of my life sing a beautiful rhythm of hope and kindness, like a friend open to all. And may the behaviors I engage in be as an expression of love to the world.

Tax the Richest to pay for the Poorest… Just a start…:)

Some like to Meditate, not me?

I don’t like it. My mind is like a train, almost never stopping deep thinking. It makes me want to shut it down. The best way to do this is very loud hard music. I can’t think and thus I can finally relax. I feel better after Metal therapy.

“Anarchist”

The Love of Capitalism???

This reminds me, that we on the bottom will never reach the master gilded world of the ones truly benefiting from the claimed glory of capitalism. While most of us, don’t always know if we can pay rent, have enough to pursue healthy food as our main food, or if we have to buy the unhealthy crap left to us. But, YES live it up as if you have not one care in the world, leaving all that weight to oppress the rest of us. So, please, oh, great rich ones, by all means, live it up as we all suffer and die so you don’t have to raise the minimum wage to even a livable standard. Well, sorry enjoy the uber capitalist wealthy. When will we have economic justice?

Anarchy atheism: advocate of freethought and anti-religious activism. If you don’t believe any god should control you, you shouldn’t believe any other human being should believe in a sky king or supernatural master and more than human kings or masters. An anarchist would most likely be atheist, anti-theist, agnostic, or apatheist believing there should be no rulers thus reject god whether they think one does or doesn’t exist. Certainly excludes rulers like gods, kings, or the state. Anarchy atheism likewise could be anti-religion as well seeing parallels between organized religion external control instead of the individual (even if god was removed) and the state (the primary target of most anarchists) are striking thus rejected. Politicians and preachers are one and the same: both work for a higher power than you, money and power. Ultimately, anarchy to atheism, goes past a simple atheism tendency to only attack god, while ignoring the state, capital, and other possible forms of domination, when anarchy atheists believe they have to attack all of it. “No gods, no masters” is an anarchist, feminist, and labor slogan. No gods, no masters comes from a pamphlet handed out by the Industrial Workers of the World during the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike. The phrase is derived from the French slogan “Ni dieu ni maître!” (literally ‘Neither God nor master’) coined by the socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880. First feminist usage was in 1914, Margaret Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter that promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters”. Margaret Sanger insisted that every woman was the mistress of her own body.”Women without superstition: No gods – No Masters!” by Annie Laurie Gaylor is a collection of writings by women freethinkers during the 19th and 20th century. Today the slogan continues to find use in anarchist politics. An anthology of anarchist writing was collected under the title “No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism” Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, instead of luxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.

I am an anarcho-humanist (basically a socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist as well as rather liberal, progressive, and revolutionary, I want all positive change) You keep attacking activists and while you’re doing that, other activists and I will keep fighting for change. Sadly, you may change a few people where they lose their way in the momentum of activism. However, happily, while you’re doing that, other activists and I will help positively change the world. I hate when someone states anarchism is about not wanting to pay taxes, as if they don’t know the main persuasion of true anarchism is humanity, not the selfishness of self only concern as in “i” language instead of “we” language of true anarchism is socialist anarchism that wishes to add us all in the liberation of humanity from oppressors, as much as possible. With a general rationale of compassion and comradery with our fellow humans, who we know are all our fellow humans, sisters, brothers, and others are all equal beings of dignity in one human family. My anarchism is because of my care for humanity. I will leave selfishness for the capitalists where it belongs. I do not support sucker-punching people, even Nazis. To me, violence should be for self-defense or other-defense. I only hit those that try to hit me or others around me, I am for non-aggression. But I am violence optional if needed as I am not a pacifist not is that what I promote. I am non-aggression or needed limited aggression or violence as is reasoned, ethical, and just, always wanting non-aggression.

What Inspires My Anarcho-Humanism:

We are all one connected human family.
No one owns the earth.
If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?

What inspires my anarcho-humanism has three core truths to my ethical anarchist persuasion:

1. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters = “Anarcho”).

2. No one owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force, and the potential for threat. Thus the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safe and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism)

3. If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power? Government is only as good as what they provide but I don’t trust ones that have rights over my body. How much more of a violation do you need to show their harm? I am not anti-society, I value good governance just don’t need the extra dead weight of government. There is not one thing a government is valued for that a non-government group with the same financial support and resources could not also do. I get we rise by helping each other and supporting universal betterment and human flourishing. Helping is Helpful: Valuing, Motivating, Supporting humanity is limited by nationalism and the, us Vs them, as if you should feel connected to only a few humans just because people invented the mental concept of land ownership, you mean you assert that you will harm others for an amount of the earth’s surface.

Seeing with anarcho-humanism eyes helps you see how to Grow in Our Positive Outcomes: Gratitude, Empathy, and Kindness. We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, which then motivates the behavior of kindness. And kindness flourishes in openness and freedom. (No gods no masters as well as do no harm and do good = Anarcho-humanism) Lastly, I Am an Atheist-Humanist who is a Socialist, Collectivist, Mutualist, Anarchist: (Anarcho-Humanist) But Why do I Hate Religion? Religion and gods are an attack to self-freedom and self-mastery. I was asked why I openly and publicly am so passionate in my hate of religion. further asking what specifically in your life contributed to this outcome. I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization, and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. Moreover, not only is religion a conspiracy theories of reality, it is a proud supporter of pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudomorality.

Religion on the whole to me deserves and earns hate, or at least disfavor when you really analyze it. Not to mention the corruption it has on politics or laws. As well as how destructive this unworthy political influence has and creates because of these false beliefs and the harm to the life of free adults but to the lives of innocent children as well (often robbed of the right to choose and must suffer indoctrination) as the disruption of educated even in public schools. Etc… I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs. Religions and their god myths are a direct threat to Self-ownership and thus Human Rights. Long live mental freedom… 1, 2, 3

Why are most anarchists atheists?

by An Anarchist FAQ

It is a fact that most anarchists are atheists. They reject the idea of god and oppose all forms of religion, particularly organized religion. So why do so many anarchists embrace atheism? The simplest answer is that most anarchists are atheists because it is a logical extension of anarchist ideas. If anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authorities, then it follows that it is the rejection of the so-called Ultimate Authority, God. Anarchism is grounded in reason, logic, and scientific thinking, not religious thinking. Anarchists tend to be rationalists and/or skeptics, and not believers. Most anarchists consider the Church to be steeped in hypocrisy and the Bible a work of fiction, riddled with contradictions, absurdities, and horrors. It is notorious in its debasement of women and its sexism is infamous. Yet men are treated little better. Nowhere in the bible is there an acknowledgment that human beings have inherent rights to life, liberty, happiness, dignity, fairness, or self-government. In the bible, humans are sinners, worms, and slaves (figuratively and literally, as it condones slavery). God has all the rights, humanity is nothing. This is unsurprisingly, given the nature of religion. Bakunin put it best:

“The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.

“Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind . . . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

“If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.” [God and the State, p. 25]

For most anarchists, then, atheism is required due to the nature of religion. “To proclaim as divine all that is grand, just, noble, and beautiful in humanity,”Bakunin argued, “is to tacitly admit that humanity of itself would have been unable to produce it — that is, that, abandoned to itself, its own nature is miserable, iniquitous, base, and ugly. Thus we come back to the essence of all religion — in other words, to the disparagement of humanity for the greater glory of divinity.” As such, to do justice to our humanity and the potential it has, anarchists argue that we must do without the harmful myth of god and all it entails and so on behalf of “human liberty, dignity, and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and returned them to earth.” [Op. Cit., p. 37 and p. 36]

As well as the theoretical degrading of humanity and its liberty, religion has other, more practical, problems with it from an anarchist point of view. Firstly, religions have been a source of inequality and oppression. Christianity (like Islam), for example, has always been a force for repression whenever it holds any political or social sway (believing you have a direct line to god is a sure way of creating an authoritarian society). The Church has been a force of social repression, genocide, and the justification for every tyrant for nearly two millennia. When given the chance it has ruled as cruelly as any monarch or dictator. This is unsurprising:

“God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds.” [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Christianity has only turned tolerant and peace-loving when it is powerless and even then it has continued its role as apologist for the powerful. This is the second reason why anarchists oppose the church for when not being the source of oppression, the church has justified it and ensured its continuation. It has kept the working class in bondage for generations by sanctioning the rule of earthly authorities and teaching working people that it is wrong to fight against those same authorities. Earthly rulers received their legitimisation from the heavenly lord, whether political (claiming that rulers are in power due to god’s will) or economic (the rich having been rewarded by god). The bible praises obedience, raising it to a great virtue. More recent innovations like the Protestant work ethic also contribute to the subjugation of working people. That religion is used to further the interests of the powerful can quickly be seen from most of history. It conditions the oppressed to humbly accept their place in life by urging the oppressed to be meek and await their reward in heaven. As Emma Goldman argued, Christianity (like religion in general) “contains nothing dangerous to the regime of authority and wealth; it stands for self-denial and self-abnegation, for penance and regret, and is absolutely inert in the face of every [in]dignity, every outrage imposed upon mankind.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 234]

Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism is then “the theory of speculation” while atheism is “the science of demonstration.” The “one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.” Atheism, then, “expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind” while theism “is static and fixed.” It is “the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.” [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246–7]

As the Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” We anarchists agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognize the destructive role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organized monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, religion “is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.” [Op. Cit., p. 240]

So, given the fruits of the Church, anarchists argue that it is time to uproot it and plant new trees, the trees of reason and liberty. That said, anarchists do not deny that religions contain important ethical ideas or truths. Moreover, religions can be the base for strong and loving communities and groups. They can offer a sanctuary from the alienation and oppression of everyday life and offer a guide to action in a world where everything is for sale. Many aspects of, say, Jesus’ or Buddha’s life and teachings are inspiring and worth following. If this were not the case, if religions were simply a tool of the powerful, they would have long ago been rejected. Rather, they have a dual-nature in that contain both ideas necessary to live a good life as well as apologetics for power. If they did not, the oppressed would not believe and the powerful would suppress them as dangerous heresies. And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a radical message. In the middle ages, numerous revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic church supported Franco’s fascists, denouncing the killing of pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining silent about Franco’s murder of Basque priests who had supported the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative but after seeing the way in which the political and economic powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion. He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking. Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata’s army of peasants during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion that explains why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice its official representatives sanctify. For anarchists, it is the willingness to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to dampen down a revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right suggests the validity of our analysis. It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to people practicing religious belief on their own or in groups, so long as that practice doesn’t impinge on the liberties of others. For example, a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view is that religion is a personal matter, above all else — if people want to believe in something, that’s their business, and nobody else’s as long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors. To end, it should be noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a devout Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon’s, influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalization movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it, “in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 248] – An Anarchist FAQ – Medium

Anarchist clashes with religion

Anarchists have traditionally been skeptical of or vehemently opposed to organized religion. Nevertheless, some anarchists have provided religious interpretations and approaches to anarchism, including the idea that glorification of the state is a form of sinful idolatry. Anarchists “are generally non-religious and are frequently anti-religious, and the standard anarchist slogan is the phrase coined by a non-anarchist, the socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880: ‘Ni Dieu ni maître!’ (Neither God nor master!)…The argument for a negative connection is that religion supports politics, the Church supports the State, opponents of political authority also oppose religious authority”. William Godwin, “the author of the Enquiry Concerning Political Justice(1793), the first systematic text of libertarian politics, was a Calvinist minister who began by rejecting Christianity, and passed through deism to atheism and then what was later called agnosticism.” The pioneering German individualist anarchist Max Stirner, “began as a left-Hegelian, post-Feuerbachian atheist, rejecting the ‘spooks’ of religion as well as of politics including the spook of ‘humanity’”. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, “the first person to call himself an anarchist, who was well known for saying, ‘Property is theft’, also said, ‘God is evil’ and ‘God is the eternal X’”. Published posthumously in French in 1882, Mikhail Bakunin‘s God and the State was one of the first anarchist treatises on religion. Bakunin expounds his philosophy of religion’s place in history and its relationship to the modern political state. It was later published in English by Mother Earth Publications in 1916. Anarcho-communism‘s main theorist Peter Kropotkin, “was a child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, and assumed that religion would be replaced by science and that the Church, as well as the State, would be abolished; he was particularly concerned with the development of a secular system of ethics which replaced supernatural theology with natural biology”. Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, “the main founders of the Italian anarchist movement, both came from freethinking families (and Cafiero was involved with the National Secular Society when he visited London during the 1870s)”. In the French anarchist movement Eliseé Reclus was a son of a Calvinist minister, and began by rejecting religion before moving on to anarchism. Sebastien Faure, “the most active speaker and writer in the French movement for half a century, “ wrote an essay titled Twelve Proofs of God’s Inexistence. German insurrectionary anarchist Johann Most wrote an article called “The God Pestilence”. In the United States “freethought was a basically anti-christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the excellent free-thought / free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer“. “Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers; reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty…The church was viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself”.Late 19th century/early 20th Century anarchists such as Voltairine de Cleyre were often associated with the freethinkers movement, advocating atheism. In Europe, a similar development occurred in French and Spanish individualist anarchist circles. “Anticlericalism, just as in the rest of the libertarian movement, in another of the frequent elements which will gain relevance related to the measure in which the (French) Republic begins to have conflicts with the church…Anti-clerical discourse, frequently called for by the French individualist André Lorulot, will have its impacts in Estudios (a Spanish individualist anarchist publication). There will be an attack on institutionalized religion for the responsibility that it had in the past on negative developments, for its irrationality which makes it a counterpoint of philosophical and scientific progress. There will be a criticism of proselitism and ideological manipulation which happens on both believers and agnostics.”. These tendencies will continue in French individualist anarchism in the work and activism of Charles-Auguste Bontemps and others. In the Spanish individualist anarchist magazine Ética and Iniciales “there is a strong interest in publishing scientific news, usually linked to a certain atheist and anti-theist obsession, a philosophy which will also work for pointing out the incompatibility between science and religion, faith and reason. In this way, there will be a lot of talk on Darwin´s theories or on the negation of the existence of the soul.”. Spanish anarchists in the early 20th century were responsible for burning several churches, though many of the church burnings were actually carried out by members of the Radical Party while anarchists were blamed. The implicit and/or explicit support by church leaders for the National Faction during the Spanish Civil War greatly contributed to anti-religious sentiment. Emma Goldman wrote in Anarchism: What It Really Stands For:

Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails.

Chinese anarchists led the opposition to Christianity in the early 20th century, but the most prominent of them, Li Shizeng, made it clear that he opposed not only Christianity but all religion as such. When he became president of the Anti-Christian Movement of 1922 he told the Beijing Atheists’ League: “Religion is intrinsically old and corrupt: history has passed it by” and asked, “Why are we of the twentieth century… even debating this nonsense from primitive ages?” – Wikipedia

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Again, What is a god?

“David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea. Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref

“Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.” ref

So, what is a god?

Debate Group on Facebook:

“Elo guys, I’m new here…for my first pots is HOW DO YOU KNOW ATHEISM is TRUE?” – New Poster

My response, What is a god?

“not related.” – New Poster

My response, So you don’t know?

“God for me is the creator of the universe.” – New Poster

My response, Ok but creative is a behavior of something. I would like to know what the unknown is that you think created. I am asking for what a god is?

“God is a supreme being…” – New Poster

My response, And do you have an example because I don’t know what that is? What is a supreme being? As it is also an unknown. So I need to know. Please. Thanks

“You can google it.” – New Poster

My response, So you have a google god-something, not a personal-god then, right? It is ok if you don’t know? Just says I don’t know what a god is or even could be but I want to believe, so you just do even when you don’t even know what it is you are believing in. What is a god? You hold the burden of proof as an honest thinker. You are intellectually honest, right?

“I don’t know what do you want from me… I don’t respond to ad-hom and insults.” – New Poster

My response, I am showing you why I as an atheist don’t believe in god. Not one person neither a street preacher, nor pasters, nor religious philosophers can answer this simple question and thus disbelief in theism assumptions or assertions is required for any honest thinker!

“Don’t beat yourself…being intellectually superior to others…its kinda arrogant way of presenting the way you behave.” – New Poster

My response, Show me where I insulted you or did an adhom, please. Thanks, and if you can show me and it is actually, then I will apologize.

My response, “Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Furthermore, Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Oppositely, Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

Fallacy fallacy?

Alternate names:

argument from fallacy
argumentum ad logicam
bad reasons fallacy
fallacist’s fallacy

“The fallacy fallacy, which could also be called the “metafallacy”, is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the conclusion it was used to support is wrong. A true statement can be defended using false logic, so using false logic to defend an opinion is not proof of the opinion being wrong. This is where one needs to make a clear distinction between “sound“, “valid” (including the distinction between scientific validity and logical validity) and “true”, instead of taking all of them as synonymous. The fallacy fallacy is sometimes rephrased as a command: Don’t shoot the message. Just because the messenger is stupid, doesn’t mean the message is. The fallacy is a special case of denying the antecedent and is a formal fallacy. It is related to Rapoport’s Rules.” ref

“It takes the following form:

P1: Argument A supports proposition P.
P2: Argument A contains a logical fallacy.
C: Proposition P is false.” ref

“There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the argument A is invalid. However, claiming that the entirety of proposition P (which could otherwise be an objective scientific truth or is supported by better arguments) is false, just because it could be, or is being, supported by fallacious argument A, is the fallacy fallacy.” ref

Fallacy fallacy fallacy?

“Like Cohen’s Law, this stacks nicely, or with amusing confusion. For a start, since the fallacy fallacy is itself a fallacy, it cannot be used to label an argument’s conclusion as false without committing it in the process. “You have used the fallacy fallacy, therefore you are wrong” is as much an example as “you have used an ad hominem, therefore you are wrong” would be.” ref

“In addition:

A fallacy is an argument that doesn’t follow proper rules of logic.
A fallacy fallacy happens because true statements can be defended through fallacious arguments. Merely proving that an argument is fallacious does not prove that the whole entire position that it defends is immediately false.
A fallacy fallacy fallacy then, is the claim that disproving particular arguments or versions of a position is irrelevant to disproving the position itself. While fallacious reasoning in support of a position does not, in itself, provide absolute proof that the position is false, it does mean that the person making the argument has failed to present any case for it to be true.” ref

“Assertions that are supported only by fallacious reasoning and special pleading to get around debunked arguments, are unlikely to have much truth value. An example where this is very common is among psychics. Numerous individual psychics have been proven to be frauds, and study after study has shown that particular psychic abilities do not exist. Yet still there is an inexhaustible supply of psychics and alleged psychic abilities — and people willing to pay them. Hence, if any of this mountain of evidence against psychic powers is cited, psychics can merely reply “Well, you haven’t proven me to be a fraud.” ref

Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?

“A fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy describes the improper application of a fallacy fallacy fallacy. Additionally, a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy may be misrepresented, resulting in a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy… ad infinitum. But seriously now. Pointing out any fallacy might sound good, but if the whole argument turns into pointing out fallacies instead of… essentially arguing, the debate becomes pointless.” ref

Inverse fallacy fallacy?

“A rare beast is the inverse fallacy fallacy, which holds that:

P1: Argument A supports proposition P.
P2: Proposition P is true.
C: Argument A does not contain a logical fallacy.” ref

“This is equally ludicrous. If one argues that the sky must be blue because kittens are cute, and the sky actually is blue, this doesn’t make the argument any less irrelevant.” ref

Fallacy misidentification?

“Fallacy misidentification occurs when a logical fallacy is misidentified, or simply misunderstood.” ref

Legitimate similar arguments?

“A fallacy fallacy does not occur if a debater merely points out that the opponent uses fallacies, without asserting that the opponent’s position is therefore incorrect. An argument of this form is perfectly valid when all possible arguments for a proposition are fallacious — indeed showing that all propositions are fallacies or somehow wrong is the way to disprove something, barring the proposition being unprovable, of course. This also allows for the prevention of abuse of the fallacy fallacy to create a argument from ignorance. Fallacies of distraction or relevance (e.g. Straw man, Red herring) are something of a special case; if one of these fallacies is demonstrably present, the conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but it is, by definition, irrelevant. However, due to the likely large number of arguments and fallacious arguments (from someone attempting a Gish gallop, for instance) in support of a proposition P, it would be easier to prove not P than to go about countering the various fallacious arguments, although this can be difficult when one’s opponent is just asking questions and otherwise spewing bullshit, not even directly claiming that P is true.” ref

Examples?

“Bob argues that 64/16=4/1 because this is what is yielded by cancellation of the sixes. Alice commits the fallacy fallacy by claiming that Bob must be wrong since cancelling digits doesn’t preserve the original ratio.
Alice argues that the world is created because it exhibits design. Bob commits the fallacy fallacy by concluding that the world must not have been created, because Alice’s argument is a non sequitur.” ref

“The following argument displays the fallacy fallacy:

P1: The argument from design supports the proposition “God exists.”
P2: The argument from design is fallacious.
C: Therefore, God does not exist.” ref

“Although the premises do provide strong evidence against a God as an interfering designer, these alone do not arrive at the more general conclusion of “God does not exist.” ref

Prevalence?

“This fallacy’s use is staggeringly common during internet debates, where pseudo-intellectualism reigns supreme. A person will seek out and attack any logical fallacy you use and dismiss your argument out of hand, without ever addressing the proposition. Fairly often, you might spot someone who will not even bother explaining why the fallacy is appropriate in that context. Some of the possible causes of this phenomenon include: they are being lazy and are just arguing by assertion, they are trying to distract from their argument and are poisoning the well, or they learned a fancy new Latin phrase and want to use it regardless of its applicability. If they have incorrectly used the fallacy then they have committed the fallacy fallacy fallacy.” ref

Did you assume on ME?

I was born in Southern California, I was brought into a sick unkind world. I was raised by sick unkind people. I was a light in the dark for my family is way too fond of staying sick unkind people. I was first abused by my first memory. How sad a tale my abused life was. I was treated by a way of unkindness in the most inhuman way.

Here is a sing that connected to my grief: Wardruna – Lyfjaberg (Healing-mountain)

Kind People of the World, the time is now, may we RISE…

My, People, are the kind! And, we will rise, we are done, waiting on the likes of you! And, may I, be brave enough to be kind in an unkind world. I am anti-nationalist, I just generally call it anarchism, but hey, whatever, you can call it something different, but whatever you want to call it, HI, that is me.

Keep protesting in the streets! AMEN – Coma America

Lesson One

How to think like a mutualistic communitarian anarchist thinker:

So. My wife is screaming ants!!! We are as if invaded by an ant army. The march in line from the outside door power matching their little feet to our cat’s food bowl and water dish. She said do we need an exterminator??? I calmly say no. she said do we need “kill bate” as going the store now is scary it is like that walking dead show you like. I say no again. She said what can we do???

I calmly point to the dry dead grass outside. I then say see all the food and water for our fellow dignity beings the ants is gone. I said hurry, our fellow dignity beings need our help. She looked at me a little odd??? I said put both food and water for our follows and they will be more than happy to stay outside. She said but how about this line in the house??? Do we kill them? I ask back should one dignity being needlessly killed another fellow dignity being and still feel they love kindness? I said we don’t have to kill even one. Just put the food outside and they will all follow it back outside.

Problem over and no dignity being was needlessly killed as is good for one action… Needlessly to say this morning only one ant remained walking aimlessly.

Be a good human.

Marquis Amon “That you understand you share the planet with other living things. You were presented with a problem. You understood the problem. The problem was not the ants, no…They needed some assistance, they were there because they were in need. No one owns the planet and we shouldn’t seek solutions that kill outside necessary defense. The logical absurdity of killing as a solution should be met with horror, not practicality. The ants are every bit as alive and important as we are. They have a right to exist.”

“Gobekli Tepe” Fully explained?

Stop feeling Proud

I don’t know what cops are all winning about, I am from Southern California, gangland USA baby. I was born in Long Beach City, my mom, well, she went to Compton highschool. I have been stabbed, jumped by a gang, shot at, and what do you know, I am so brave, I don’t even own a gun. My people, are the Kind.

Help people, for no reason.

No Philosopher, I?

I am good at philosophy but this is not due to anyone philosopher than my wife. I don’t read any of them not even one. They are cool I would assume but bore to me and I get philosophy better than some Academic philosopher professors as they have to remember some idea, person, or book to motivate or generate their ideas. I am so naturally creative, I could make it up new every time with not too much trouble, as I think naturally as a philosopher as I am a deep thinker not as a choice but as an internal addictive compulsion to know and understand everything I wish to. As I am will to power.

Marquis Amon–

“Godless because the idea makes no sense, humanist because I am human, and anarchist, because we keep sliding further into depravity under the current state and economic models.”

Religion faith beliefs would be a comedy if they didn’t hold the potentiality to harm or kill people or I should say if people didn’t harm or kill others for religious faith beliefs. Religion faith beliefs are intellectually funny but they are no joke because of what harm they can inspire.

I Am not Pro Guns or Anti guns.

Dude, hold my gun?

So I was a crack addict at 16 and I get a call from a friend of ill rebuke, an intense Philippino punk rocker crack addict. He tells me he needs my help to score. We are off. I stupidly forgot to ask where we are even going or what we hope to do when we get there. I just know crack is a possibility. We show up at a ghetto house in Santa Ana on Mini St.

We sit still as the car cools. Popping noise wakes me up to full attention. I think let’s get it and go. I say so what up?

He tells me let’s go to the trunk. I thought, shit. This fool better not tell me he wants to rob the crack house. Hell with that shit, take me home. But all I say is okay.

We are leaning toward the open trunk. I can’t see that well as it is 7 (or so I don’t remember) at night and then, the trunk was half full. Then there it is a gun! Fuck, I said, what the hell is that rifle for??? I said, hey man I am not up for killing anyone.

He looks up at me at I am at least a foot taller. He said, are you really going to let me go by myself??? What kind of friend are you???

Then we are at the door. I thought of running. But no I am stupid. He holds the AK 47 as if walking in a parade. I think this is not going to be good. Then just before the door opens he turned to me and said, dude hold my gun and the door opens.

I go cold. Two angry Mexican gang members are yelling. I want to drop the gun and run like hell. But I don’t move.

My friend grabs the rifle from me offering it to me, a shotgun now rests not far from his head.

I am breathing to heard, I am scared as hell as they make us come inside probing up with their own rifles. I was standing there trying to take it all in. There are only 4 dudes I see.

They are now screaming in half English and Spanish. I don’t know Spanish but it seems the one guy may be saying, kill us. I have never been more scared in my life.

One guy, I am guessing a boss of something, tells us to sit on the couch. And after that, they said smoke weed. I said, what? You, want me to get high? I was thinking, damn this is one odd night.

Then he said, so let me get this right? You are not police??? I again thought, what? No, thanks, I am not in the mood just at this moment. I said I would just like to leave.

He almost laughed, and I died a little more. But the weed was good. Not that I like my weed enjoyment mixed with death threats.

I hear, a familiar voice, a Mexican female voice is speaking Spanish, but damn that sounds like my homegirl, Lee, a gang friend of mine that let me kiss her once but really was not into me like I was her.

Then I saw her as she came around the bend in the hallway. Damien, she said with a loving tone. Then bam. The leader punched her in the face for talking to me, especially in English.

I want to fucking kill this asshole for hitting her but I am scared not to mention the two rifles pointed at us. The leader grabbed her by the arm pulling her back down the hallway. I think, fuck we are all going to die.

All I hear is taking in Spanish. Then she alone returned. I thought well that is odd as hell. She asks, what the hell are you doing here??? And why did you two come to the door with the gun? I don’t know if I know.

She looks scared as she tells me I have to get out of here as she thinks they might kill us. I thought great, fuck. I said yes I would like outside.

My friend the foolish crack addict is trying to get us killed, I just looked away and see my friend talking with the leader. Did I just hear that right? He is still going to sell us crack for this damn gun, I am alive again. I breathe out.

He is now taking to me and Lee is nowhere to be found. I thought is that a good thing or???

He said to me your friend is not reasonable. He said that an 8 ball is not a fair price. I thought, what do you mean by unreasonable, right now I think my friend is almost stupider than how stupid I have been.

I look at my friend pissed, yes I do think this fool is going to get me dead. Then the leader yield in Spanish and more drugs came. My dumb as shit friend, I am guessing, left his god-damned brain back in the car or something.

He actually was still trying to decide if he was okay with the deal. I said yes. Yes. We are going to take the deal as I was done letting my life swing in the balance.

Now it is my friend who looks mad as we do the deal. Thank the baby Jesus. I am not going to die. Lee is back at my side. But such comfort is removed by the words she is now saying softly in my ear.

Damn, she is sexy and breathing hot in my ear. I am feeling aroused then chilled to the bone. What? What the fuck did she just say??? Oh my fucking god, run…

I try to reassemble her words, two dead bodies are already laying out in the back yard. On fuck! She said please get out your life depended on it. I was stone. What can I do? I look at my fool of a friend who is enjoying a crack rock for the road I guess.

I thought, he could not wait until we are safe??? I think this is it. Never am I going with this dude again. If I live. Then we are free. Free at last, free at last I think. As we are off in the car for home.

Ps. I don’t drink alcohol nor do I do any drug now but weed.

Message two from your friendly neighborhood anarchist, NO, I will not do what the hell you tell me, I am not even part of your bloated laughable, capitalism, if not for the social evil you speak. Yeah, I see you, the ugly hate violating humanity, they darken all hopes of the true hights of human flourishing, and god, damn it, I will not fucking, stan for it. I am taking this world of unkindness, the fuck down. I know all my champions of freedom know there is no peace in hurting humanity. we the fuck are done. We are coming to change it all. I, fear, I may receive not much better treatment than many champions of kindness before me, I fucking love you all. You give me strength. May I let kindness be my teacher.

I may never know how beautiful you are, until you are kind.

Fucking, Quit, Giving, My, AntiFa, a Bad, Name! And telling lies about it! #supportourtroops

It’s disgusting how many racist white people there are in America.
They’re everywhere. Be so good, they can’t, ignore you, even if they want to!
Be a safe person for others.

#AntiFaStrong

My, People, are the Kind! #supportourtroops

Message three, from your friendly neighborhood anarchist, The people are the entire humanity, live in love now, every moment is so precious, is but wasted in words that hurt and hearts that break. this travesty must end not. How do you not feel shame, I am beyond amazed. But, I am nothing, I am the silent watcher, I am just a candle in the dark, I am like the water. I may flow strong now but that sad day will come that I too must leave you. But don’t cry for me, don’t look in the trees, I will not be a star nor anything but my actions now. Act as if your life matters, I know I sure do. And never, forget, always be kind above it all. as to those who can offer such an amazing gift to the world, my heart goes out to you. May I be kind enough to be counted among the likes of you? My, people, are the kind. May we all be good humans.

We rise by helping each other.

Nudist/Naturalist?

I love nudism so much, my dream retirement is my wife and I own a very exclusive mini nudist/open lifestyle (poly/swinger) adults-only club, in southern Florida. I like more peaceful and romantic. I am for easy going I don’t want any high-pressure environment. I enjoy friendly, kind, and loving environments.

Marquis Amon

“A beautiful philosophy, a humanistic one. Who should run your life? The answer should be you. That’s why we should also be godless. Gods are an insult to humanity, invisible (nonexistent) abusive, and oppressive by the notion of religion. Ultimately, they are not needed. Good thing they don’t exist.”

Learning to love?

What we don’t understand we can come to fear. That which we fear we often learn to hate. Things we hate we usually seek to destroy. It is, thus, upon us to try and understand the unknown or unfamiliar not letting fear drive us into the arms of hate and harm. May I be a friend of kindness. the true empowered warrior like none before.

I, am so DONE, with unkind people!

I am the far-left, stop calling Democrats Far-Left, they are not!

The sad history of the world has often been little more than oppression by masters, ones that we now call great. You have to make all kinds of choices in life and I chose kindness.

As you may have started to understand, my life was different.

Here is my first experience with weed at 15, I believe. I had a friend who was telling me about a party he new about where we could get drunk. I was an alcoholic was all in. My friend said he was going to stop by. So the dude was always late, but I loved him. Well, this is not that kind of love story, sorry. But we were close friends for a couple of thugs. He was a gang member but damn I did like him. I had friends in several different gangs. Let’s just say I was gang familiar. I appreciate people.

They saw that in me more than the rest of the world. I actually miss my gang friends. What can I say? I hate the violence but they are still people. I tried to be me no matter what. They never pressured me to join. They even protected me a few times fighting for me on my behalf. I don’t know why humans try so hard to not see others as full people. I come from poverty. I understand hunger and not being able to get bills paid. People will do what they must to survive.

I am sad to say I use to steal food from friends’ houses as I was hungry. I am not happy about it but fuck I had to survive. So I would get my more well-off generally white friends. I said white because my other friend was African American. In fact, my friends were across the board. I was open to people who were on my side. Anyway, sorry for moving off the topic of my first experience with weeeeed.

So my African American buddy calls and said he was sorry they party was still on but now they only got weed they could not get alcohol. I was very disappointed. Damn, I don’t do weed. He said that is cool but have you ever tried it? No, and I don’t think I will. He asked further. Why? I didn’t know. I had heard my mom tell me that weed gives you demons. And I like demons and all but possession, not so much.

But then I thought, I am going to try it. I said let’s go. I am down. He stopped by and we were off. I was in his lowered truck enjoying the soft air rushing against my face from the open window. My arm hangs lazily out the side. I felt like I was dreaming. Then, hey man we are here. It was not a house I was familiar with. I saw three other people and as I got close I recognize two of them, other big dues like myself and my friend. As they welcome us in I see there are about 8 big thugs. I was a thug too so it was all good.

Next, I was showing off my knife as one of them someone I kinda knew from school but not sure. He was harsher towards me than those who knew me. I started feeling odd, I hope he is not going to start a fight. Then I started getting excited about the weed getting passed around. One big joint. It tastes like shit I thought as I inhale. I forgot to tell you the first funny part. I was wondering when is it going to start? The one guy, who I think what associated with the small house said, hey man have you smoked before?

I, all of a sudden I thought, good Damien, now you are in a room with 8 or so people, I can’t remember fully. And they are all tough and African American. Here I am the only white guy and I am the one who is pure as the driven mud, hey I have not but I am hardcore, so pass that down when you get the chance. The room fell silent. Then loud laughing. Hell, man, we know you are cool or you would not be here and we all got high. It was a good day. But I again as ever was foolish. At first, I don’t feel anything. Then, holy Shit, I got so high. I was fucking stupid high. Lol

I was so high I thought I need to go home as my mom will know I got high. I don’t know what made me think that. I was stupid high like I said and I asked the owner if he had any breath mints? He said “then joking” use spray deodorant. So it tastes like shit too by the way if you were wondering. Lol

Never forget the person/personal is political as politics are an alter all things are offered to in this life under governments, society, family, etc. Boldly be you. Funniest shit I ever heard: Damien (gives a dramatic voice) “Its ok to be an atheist but you don’t want to be antitheist and certainly not the proud antireligionist that I so very am. Or in the same line of blotted foolishness try to tell me that I can’t be an antitheist nor an antireligionist and still be kind. I don’t know, I think I manage pretty well, don’t you.

An evil bible quote for today…

“Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God”

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.

Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Lion’s Roar

Still, eyes awaken, vails fall as the beast in me starts quaking. Breath deep the world within. Brake the silence, terrors male. I stand before you the vanquisher of your dreaded fantoms only to boldly, ask, you what is next. I breathe the fire of the heathens in every word I utter in contemplation of reason. I am the goth lion, I am will to power. Hear my lion’s roar. And as always may I be kind above it all.

Marquis Amon: “The courage to face other’s fears for them. To challenge that which they not dare. You do this, because you care. A kind champion that will do his best to be there. Gods, nor ghosts, or demons may haunt mortal men within thy presence. As you caste the light of wisdom to banish these ethereal fiends from their presence. Offering virtue as a present. That we only have each other, a truth to be seen as self-evident.”

Real quick Fact about me:

I could not read a clock until 7th grade. I did so poorly in school they held me back a year and I had to do summer school several times just to barley graduate. I am not stupid it is nearly impossible to be abused as I was in my life and function normally at school. People don’t know just extreme neglect as child abuse retards the brain making it develop slower or with more issues in function.

Just a scared kid…

I am just a scared kid that grew up looked around at an unkind world and wondered why do the alow it to be this way? How does this unkind wold not make them ill at such sad inhumanity? I see it all and my heart grows darker with shame. how did we let such an emotional sickness become a pandemic and why are so few people seeing any need for the mask or life kindness can be it can shield us from a storm, it is the very thing that keeps us warm, kindness.

Please be a good human.

Here is how odd I see it, people, Damien you are so great for being kind without excuses. But you have to stop believing in such good because t takes really hard emotional work, we are not willing t be as brave as you Damien, we hate the world and know your way s better. But see section c5, paragraph 23, and line 1. I just think are you serious? I almost think, am I too soon for this world. I will as always chalk it up as more sad proof there is no such fantasy as gods. And them, well at least I am smart enough to be an atheist. I smile, all is very not good, but fuck it, I am fine, I still have my heart of kindness past it all. Right on. I am dipping in the worm Coldren of peace and love, will you join me? Please be a good human.

Funniest shit I ever heard: Damien (gives a dramatic voice) “Its ok to be an atheist but you don’t want to be antitheist and certainly not the proud antireligionist that I so very am. Or in the same line of blotted foolishness try to tell me that I can’t be an antitheist nor an antireligionist and still be kind. I don’t know, I think I manage pretty well, don’t you?

The eyes of the world predicted my failure but here I am, I am a survivor, No longer do I hide my face, I no longer fear a fall from your grace for I find my courage plain as day in the human race, may I be a good human. May I put truth above all and valiantly thrust a crusade for truth and caring, which will help show love can and will, in the end, win, if only in my black heart so often close to that deadman’s plank. I am a fighter, I don’t need you to save me, I don’t need your empty claims of magic in the world, a stumbling block to many, yet, I am no longer one of them, I am will to power.

Say the truth plainly don’t allow pretend but do so with a caring desire to teach as one would to a friend. May I be a caring firebrand atheist. One, with an awakened humanity fully alive in my humanist heart. Desiring to demonstrate my humanitarianism as I fully stand up for truth. It is not either-or but both reality as well as kindness revolutionaries. Ones, who should, be strongly speaking what is right as the truth is not pretended. I am bound by the limitations we all face but may I bravely be a good human past it all…

If you are not helping, please, can you get out of my way?

I am that freak of nature, a power from the anti-power crusaders, warring against the power dynamic to return it back where it belongs- the hands of the people. I am a free-thinking invader into the shell of malignancy infecting humanity which strangles reason out of the world. A proud anarchy theorist, I breathe the fire of the heathens, a thought revolutionary and mental freedom fighter. I am a humanist atheist who desires a better world for us all, one that is kinder, juster, and more rational in its pursuits.

“If God existed, where would he be?”

My response, So, here is how I hear it: “if the Unknown existed where would it be.” So you can see why I need to know what you mean by a god?

Quit trying to invent your god from the scraps of science.

What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse-engineering facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know the work of reverse engineering facts of reality has largely been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer. I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that has already been reasonably disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was.

The Flaw of God morality or God’s goodness

What can be said of a God ethics if nothing a God could do is unethical? Appealing to a morality system limited from God brings several problems starting with how it cannot be said that God is all good and that this God gave us our sense of good without lapsing into tautology. Or explained in a different way the statement’s negation or refutation is unsatisfiable, so nothing can be deemed as wrong, and any behavior is good or right.
For then we are merely saying that God morality or God’s goodness is unfalsifiable as what amounts to God morality or God’s goodness is true in every possible interpretation of behaviors or commands with nothing to explain or show otherwise. Thus, God morality or God’s goodness is, therefore, untestable outside of God, as whatever is said or done is bound to or in accordance with God’s actions and standards, so God has no other possibilities then good, making the term good only what it is said God may order or do, and nothing God could order or do is bad or unethical meaning it is not real morality.

To be completely honest, I am not much for the nonsense assuming that is packed inside god-bothers’ beliefs. Just stop.

An honest mind, enjoys just correction.

My Favorite Put Down of God Believers?

I was asked what is my favorite put down of believers. Well, I don’t worry about putting anyone down, my goal is offering info to challenge what believers think they know hoping to change their minds. When I post other more offensive stuff to religious ideas it is more for the enjoyment of nonbelievers than attacks at believers, though if it offends believers why care as no one has the right to not be offended. My motto is to attack thinking, and not people.

I am a truth-addict and wish to expose falsehoods. But for me, this is a goal, a needed endeavor, or a cause I feel needs championing. It is a worthy cause but it is not what gives my life meaning.

What truly gives my life meaning is the depth of my emotional support and connectedness, in conjunction with my hope, love, care, empathy, compassion, kindness, altruism, etc. for both myself and others.

To yourself be true.

No one was on my side when I started. So, I decide to be on my side, because, damn, I am worth it. Don’t give up if others are not rooting for you, do it for yourself. Other’s lack of a complement does not tell you how well you did. May, I always strive for my best, no matter who is on my side or not. To yourself be true. I don’t do kindness, rather I strive to live in kindness.

An old philosophy friend of mine, when we first met he first thought of me as arrogant. But it was only a short matter of time that he realized, actually want I said to which he thought me bragging was:

He walked up to me, at a philosophy meetup group and said, “I heard you really like philosophy and are an atheist. But are you sure you are a deep thinker? Because there are just two main types of people who think they are philosophers that specialize and thinkers.” He told me he was a thinker, a deep thinker. I said yeah, I am a deep thinker. I am so deep in my thinking that I am deep like the ocean. I am so deep others may drown just following me.

What an odd turn of fate.

To be one never protected, by the world like a child being abused, when I need you the most. And here I am, the one who gives kindness back to the world freely in a way not afforded me. What an odd turn of fate. It is a very honorable human who strives to help when their lives had little of that. I am proud to say, I too, am such an individual. I am like a candle in the dark. I only wish to help bring light to the world. I don’t find it as any example of mental health to live in this world and it not bother you at all. Me, I cry inside for all who suffer. You are not alone, I see you. What happens to the ones forgotten harms the humanity of us all. Be a good human do all you can, lives are on the line. How could one of honor do any different?

Have you ever made a graduate list? It is an amazing mind and heart-opening gift to you and your humanity. Be emotionally considerate of others. I have said it before, although I am a very wise person, the wisest thing I have ever done was to be kind. Feel free to share anything from me or about me. I hide from no one. I am an open person with an open life. I feel the personal is political. Do you feel like you are liking to many of my posts or think there is some limit to how much you can respond? I say feel free to be you but be kind. I want to thank all of you for your support that you did give and the acknowledgment you have shown me. I love you all.

My people are the ones who are kind.

Do you know what I am? An authentic life expressing itself. My wife just told me the most amazing way to look at my abuse of being alone from my family. That I was not truly raised by them. That is why I stayed such a beautiful human. Damn, I fucking love my wife. I scream to the world, “I win” because I know in the letting go I can. If you know of god, what Exemplary behaviors are you doing in the world? Because I am told by you that God is love. Just a heads up, one of my least favorite things is unkind people. My thinking is strong like a bomb and deep like the ocean as well as so creatively imaginative it is as if a star shining brightly.

I never believed you that I couldn’t change the world and I still don’t!

We rise by helping each other.

Hug the pain away?

One of the worst things this virus has done to me is it has stolen my ability to hug strangers. I love everyone. I don’t even like handshakes. I always think, what the hell, and have I just bought something? I want to boldly and openly apologize to the world for my past harm of unkindness, I truly have tried to change. I ask for your understanding, for back then, I was not brave enough to be kind. I hurt people from age 5 to age 22. I am now 48 and rethinking my long-ago actions. May I be, naturally therapeutic. Sometimes it’s good to get away from people and just breathe without expectations that glorious free being you are. I have worked hard in my life but another true fact is I have basically lived paycheck to paycheck most of my life. I understand working people.

What’s wrong with the homeless?

I have been homeless before sleeping in a car at -19. I had only clothes to pile over me to stay warm. I feel deeply for all homeless people. People use to see my face and turn away, they would talk down on me as if wanting human dignity was a task they could not bear, my touch, the vile thing of the disregarded ones. We are not nothing. We are all past it all just another being of dignity.

Why be kind in an unkind world?

I am opening my heart to everyone, be kind. This may sound foolish to you now but I think you will one day change. This call for kindness is the kind of life message from one dignity being to another, be kind. We only have one very short life, how proud I am that I can be counted among the brave. You know the ones that saw a cold world and only wanted to make it shine. If you don’t get that then it’s just not the point in your journey yet because I will tell you. There will come a day that you remember this interaction of one genuine heart to another. The most beautiful thing in the world. Take care. I am rooting for you. For I am an impossibility remover.

Will they see the good human in you?

I always think on my future Wikipedia page, will they be kind? Will they say I brought good to the world? Will, they think highly of how I have lived my life? Will they see the good human I have become? I think all this as I will be gone, my life story will tell the rest.

No, science CAN NOT rightly be with religion.

People may add unwarranted things to their conception or use of science but not rightly so. Science is a warranted method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic. In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological Naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion.

Change an Atheist?

If you really want other people to believe your-god you can, just have your god show up. Challenge yourself first, ask your god to show itself to you proving existence; before you tell others it is true or exists. I promise to believe in your god, only when and if it declares itself existent, by showing up. If your god cannot provide its existence to you, why would you think anyone else should believe in your god’s possible existence. But even if your god proving its existence could be possible, I would never worship your god. No worries though, as your god surely doesn’t exist. How do I know? Simply our god is not real and thus will never show up nor prove existence, just like all imaginary friends.

Empty Vs. Valid Claims

I reject Empty Claims and Desire Valid-Justification in order to feel a motivation to believe that claims have met their burden of proof in the substantiation of the proposed meaning. To me, empty claims, assertions, assumptions, and beliefs are ideas that equal offered opinions without the fortifying substance of a valid justification to substantiate its proposed meaning. A general thinking in all my epistemology theorizing is Justificationism. By claiming to know something by faith is to act in a way mirroring a dishonest thinker, as intellectually honest thinkers don’t claim knowledge without justification.

I see the need for justification as part of the Burden of proof necessity and the rational requirement in the ethics of belief and these are Intellectual honest parts of good belief-etiquette. I value good Belief-Etiquette: reasoned belief-acquisitions, good belief-maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. I am first always a rationalist, as reason is my only master. 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 Religion Problem?

What a turbulent maelstrom that we see the innocent as the die slowly under the mental oppression of illusions. What gnarled path are we forced upon? Silence is not our own it is like a plague forced on us from birth. Alone we struggle as the roots of hate are pushed deep among the children of the earth. How can we not act? How can one stay silent at the farming of innocent minds to where they are so locked in that without any proof at all they willingly believe in mental servitude the most ridiculous non-real things? This problem of religion started before the time of reason and like living only for gods or afterlives pushed upon the innocent from birth to the point many disparage this current an only life wishing for the make-believe next life.

Please be kind.

When people demand of me to give account for why they should even value kindness? I pause, breathe Damien, they know not what they do. An alarm is screaming in my mind. I emotionally run for the doors. I wisely think I am hearing a message here. I see what is right I see what is true. I think if someone came up to you and demanded you to defend loving any child. I think would have to emotionally step the fuck back, before any of that yucky gets on my nice humanity. But I am the sturdy tower, the silent one of a thousand stories that can’t seem o get others to value his call for kindness. how truly odd this world is. And there I am all dressed up with nowhere to go. But as always, it is my plight in life, to be the better human, and I stay kind.

May I be brave enough to reach for the glory of kindness. Please be kind.

Being kind in an unkind world to unkind people treating me unfairly is a true sign of my hights of bravery.

Sorry, I am just Dreaming of another world.

I don’t like this world, please can we make another, a kinder one? The world gave me its gods its hate and harm, its very shame. To which I only think, wow, how the world needs me, a kind unbeliever fighting for good, and why is being kind so hard for some people?

I am a real far-leftist, Hi.

Yay right… SQUEEZING the top 1% ought to be the most natural thing in the world for politicians seeking to please the masses. Yet, with few exceptions, today’s populist insurgents are more concerned with immigration and sovereignty than with the top rate of income tax. This disconnect may be more than an oddity. It may be a sign of the corrupting influence of inequality on democracy. You might reasonably suppose that the more democratic a country’s institutions, the less inequality it should support. Rising inequality means that resources are concentrated in the hands of a few; they should be ever more easily outvoted by the majority who are left with a shrinking share of national income. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/21/as-inequality-grows-so-does-the-political-influence-of-the-rich

Bro, what the hell?

I once got two of the weirdest questions at my atheist-humanist outreach. The first was as a theist inquiring “as an atheist how do you stand up for yourself without god?” So, it to me is like asking without believing unbelievable things lacking justification for warranted belief, how do you stand up for yourself. Moreover, the first one could not get how you could love or believe in yourself without god. And the other as an atheist what is your opinion on spousal abuse?

The second theist did not think without a god I could be moral and not abuse others. So, it to me is like asking without believing unbelievable things lacking justification for warranted belief, how could be moral and not abuse others. I am floored at just how deluded some believers are about living life free of myths and imagery friends. I tried to set the record straight. I am an atheist-humanist, and I not only believe in good, I wish good for others and to actively do things to promote good.

Rightism and Racism

It’s not that everyone on the right is racist it is just that if one is racist they are most likely from the right. Rightism the ideology of the political right; belief in or support of the tenets of the political right. All ‘things’ conservative or traditional might be termed ‘right’ or ‘rightism,’ and the other ‘things liberal or progressive’ termed ‘left’ or ‘leftism.’

“Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. The terms are commonly used to describe fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views and commonly include authoritarianism.” ref

“Claims that superior people should proportionally have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated with the far right. The far-right has historically favored an elitist society based on a belief of the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses. Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable. Concerning the socio-cultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), one far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritized.” ref

“Two common defining features of right-wing extremism are: a rejection of fundamental human equality, which is what often makes the party right-wing, and a rejection of the fundamental democratic values of the state, which makes it extremist. Altogether there is five key features or tendencies radical right ideologies tend to share – nationalism, racism, xenophobia, anti-democracy, and the belief in a strong state. This is based on the fact that they appear in 50% of the definitions of the extreme-right surveyed.” ref

We rise by helping each other.

I always write my passion. Great writers to me take silence and give it a voice. They gave our hurt a cry it sometimes didn’t even know we needed. I see such a rare skill, to be so emotionally vulnerable. It often enables an enjoyable self-journey in the mind. Be an example, not a warning. Often to me, it seems like there is only one way to win, decide you can! Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?

We found your stupid bible god. lol

“Israeli archaeologist says he found 3,000-year-old clay head depicting the biblical God of Israel. Colleagues respond the image doesn’t represent Yahweh, a deity and maybe not even a man” ref

Relationship Anarchism?

I have an open marriage, like 15 years or so. I am the only one looking for more sex play in my life and not my wife. She actually doesn’t like people. I am a people person so she lets me be me freely in our loving marriage.

I am odd. I enjoy romantic-themed threesomes and don’t feel like I have fully engaged in fully enjoyed sex unless I get to have either a meal together before sex where fun and joy is shared or having a meal afterwards to add to the friends with benefits sexual interaction. So I don’t just want sex and not friends. I am thus less like a swinger and a little bit closer to poly. But I don’t define it other than relationship anarchism.

And here YOU just thought I was an atheist, I am so much,

and I mean, much, much more. Lol

I don’t know, the more I am around people, the more I think I would rather be around animals. I know I am a high functioning sociopath but I never use it as an excuse to not be kind. Just for the record here, I am an Anti-Fascist. Sometimes antisocial always, Antifa. I know you are shocked I am a far-leftist.

History of the Antifa (“anti-fascist”) Movements

Hi, fuck the noise, you called god, Silence!

So sorry, to keep bothering you but I also loathe Fascism in my life, please vote responsibly and get Trump out! Neither Trump nor Fascism, fuck, what the hell was I talking about, damn Trump that welcomer of fascist-themed nightmares. What was my point again, oh yeah fuck Trump the champion of the inhumane and like fascism, has no place in our society, I just have to keep addressing this for the students in the back. I also loathe people who are cruel towards animals.

Religious Freedom, yeah right. lol

Trump is One of the Most Reactionary Forces of Far-right Christian Extremism

Quick fact about me:

I loathe anything like fascism and that which doesn’t respect the dignity of human rights.

So you can imagine my utter destain for thinking like the claims about the Bible god.

THERE, IS, NO, GOD.

“What if someone says in the same manner, “THERE IS GOD” Then you’ll ask for reason/proof. Then that person will say God is beyond reason and proof. Then you’ll say that doesn’t mean anything, why should you believe this? Then that person will say well don’t (believe) but your disbelief doesn’t remove the existence of God. Then you’ll start discussing what exists, and then you will find that you can’t prove that you exist and yet you know that you exist. And then you’d want to take in another direction, why should you believe in an entity to which has no effect on the world, and then that person will say well… effect and mechanism of working need not be simplistic like the entity has to appear and do things on the same way that you do… God this is becoming a tiresome screed…” – Linkedin Challenger

My response, Well, let’s start with your clear and in-depth information on what is a god?

“Damien AtHope, God is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something’ (something within our perception domain).” – Linkedin Challenger

My response, So do you have a reality-example of anything even close to your unsupported assumptions of a “shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something.”?

“Damien AtHope, I would refer to my first comment (not for the example, but for the structure of arguments in such discussions.” – Linkedin Challenger

My response, I will rewrite it so you can more clearly see my issue:

“The Unknown” (your claims of something you Label, as a god-something) is a shapeless entity that breathes fire into ‘nothing’ and outcomes ‘something’, and can exist on its own, without ‘something.”

“Damien AtHope, yes, the “Unknown”. That’s why I don’t say ” THERE IS NO GOD”, I can I don’t know! Now that comes to “knowledge” So, effectively every knowledge has only one basis – that some experience is registered to mind. And the way this happens is through sense perception. Now, if someone genuinely has some religious sort of experience (discounting the skepticism) I would not completely reject the possibility. If the mind is the ultimate endpoint in knowledge and experience, why would an entity from outside our domain feel need to come through sense perception? It appeared in someone’s (again genuinely), is that not enough for him/her?” – Linkedin Challenger

My response, How odd, you sound as if you think your choice is the smarter one. lol Yet, you said that unreason as if you making positive baseless claims believing without reason, then not saying the negative as if such a rejection of unfounded claims is even close to the intellectual dishonesty of bad reasons to believe anything, there is no god, you admit not knowing it seems bit yet there you are talking as if you know, I call people liers that tell things they know are not true as if true. So you need some humility as you are not owed anything but help thinking better. Don’t go foolishly into unreason, saying there is a god when all that you can confirm is nothing and all you know is there are still things unknown to science. What is a god, it seems you need to just say, I don’t know.

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Not some labeled name gifted arbitrarily but the actual thing put forward as the thing the label is describing as this god-something? How can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality? Again, What is a god? “David Hume’s considered view that in respect of our idea of god we have no relevant impression(s) that can serve as the origin of this idea.

Given his theory of meaning, this leaves the term god “altogether insignificant” making him, to me, an Ignostic Atheist. The fundamental point that emerges is that Hume agrees with Hobbes that in respect of our idea of god our predicament is much the same as that of a blind man trying to form the idea of fire, making Hobbes also an Ignostic Theist, to me.” ref “Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.” So, what is a god?

How are we not smarter than people of the past?

Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that? The people of the past did not know “science” but they did know, family. So, to simplify, it as we don’t have three hours for me to fully brake it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.

I wish my life to be an expression of love to the world.

I don’t what another child to have to overcome their childhood. End Abuse!

Pseudo-logic is all the rage, for that which lacks good evidence or sound reasoning. How are we not smarter than people of the past?

How can you tell if you are loved?

I assumed I was not really cared about but maybe some? No, not much at all. Here is another one of my sad life stories. Let’s just call it the store.

“The Store”

For so many there is no place like home. Me, I wanted to be any place but my father’s house.

I am not sure how old I was, but I think 11 to 13 years old. I was raised in a very abusive environment and a fundamentalist Christianity cult faith. My father was so religious and strict we could not watch nor movies, almost no music unless god related. No sports, just god. And their rolly-polly book. So you are a little caught up. We never went almost anywhere as all things generally related to god. Thus when he asked me if I wanted to go and look around the store. And I was thrilled. All the wonderful things. Not that he was even buying anything for me. In my sad life, just looking at things others could buy thrilled me. I was overjoyed when he sad at the door of the store go on, as he could see my excitement in my eyes

I just stood there. I was not sure if he was kidding. We just looked at each other. Then he said, now run along. I want to be quick. I asked him, dreading him saying, there is no time. I was thinking it is just over there, hopefully he will let me see a few more beautiful things at the store. This was almost like a amusement park in my sad abused mind. When you truly have next to nothing, everything seems special.

So he said again go now and hurry up. I was gone. I felt high drifting off among the shelves of toys I would never own but I could dream and I was dreaming a wonderful day and… I realized it was a few minutes. But he had only given me a few minutes. I was scared, as I calmly but with intent. He was right over there, wasn’t he? I felt dread trickle down me. Wait, was I too long? Had I errored and he was made to look for me? I panic. My heart racing, look up at the clock. But I don’t fully understand how to read it. I am the unwanted thing, the bother, the problem. No need to care about Damien. Let that little beast fend for himself. I was thinking I failed to cut off my looking at all the wonderful colors. I am an artist but lived in an art and creativity dessert.

Just the Bible I could not fully read. I ran outside. I know I will find the car. Relief flooded over me. I speedily pushed past the people trying to get out the door. Free now I can finally look outside. I view the toes of cars. I don’t know what to do. I turn and look back, nothing. Where is my father? I think he is likely worried about where I was, right? I started to doubt. He is very mean to me. No, he would leave me, that is crazy. I only walked away from him like he said, a few minutes. Nothing more. Again I feel as if I have been bad, or done something wrong. I decide I can’t just stand there. So I start walking down the sea of cars. Not having been in many parking lots walking around not making much of it. All the cars and I don’t see mine. I am setting and hot.

Where is my father? I am dreading almost finding him. I think he is going to be so mad. I think if I go back in the store someone else can help me. But then I looked up and down. I don’t know who I should talk to. I am a child statue, I stand and the adults Flow around me as if a rock in a stream. They don’t even notice me. So I look for someone in charge. I ask someone and they said they would help. I was saved. I was reborn. I felt great. Then his face darkened. Sorry, kid, I tried him three times on the loudspeaker. Dread anew. I felt cold chills. I started feeling sick. Did he leave me? Then how could he just leave me? I was just stuck in the store. Where could I go what could I do? What did I do to deserve this? There I sit getting hungry and scarred. I was fully alone. Hours went by. I was the crying statue others didn’t even see. It was almost as if I got smaller.

A bad child in time out. I was morning my sad childhood, when I heard the man who had been ignoring me ever since he had last called for my father. It may have been 3 or so hours. And my father finally called? I first thought I hope he was not mad at me. I eagerly asked what did my father say and when will he be there? He looks scared, what is wrong? Is be hurt? Your father said he decided to go home he had things to work on. He can’t come right now but in an hour or two, he doesn’t know his girlfriend is off work and will go out of her way to get me. How do you know if it’s love?

I was asked, Can you explain more, please. I have a sociopath mom and cousin. My mom was pure evil. I can’t believe you are a sociopath. You are such a nice guy.

My response, I am doing all I can, it is my life mission, a kind world.

Sociopath vs. Psychopath: What’s the Difference?

“You may have heard people call someone else a “psychopath” or a “sociopath.” But what do those words really mean? You won’t find the definitions in mental health’s official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Doctors don’t officially diagnose people as psychopaths or sociopaths. They use a different term instead: antisocial personality disorder. Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.” https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1

Do They Have a Conscience?

“A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He’s a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center. A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says. A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior. Both can and often do lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.” https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1

They’re Not Always Violent

“In movies and TV shows, psychopaths and sociopaths are usually the villains who kill or torture innocent people. In real life, some people with antisocial personality disorder can be violent, but most are not. Instead they use manipulation and reckless behavior to get what they want. “At worst, they’re cold, calculating killers,” Kipnis says. Others, he says, are skilled at climbing their way up the corporate ladder, even if they have to hurt someone to get there. If you recognize some of these traits in a family member or coworker, you may be tempted to think you’re living or working with a psychopath or sociopath. But just because a person is mean or selfish, it doesn’t necessarily mean he has a disorder.” https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1

I know I am a high functioning sociopath but I never use it as an excuse to not be kind.

“I have a sociopath mom and cousin. My mom was pure evil. I can’t believe you are a sociopath. You are such a nice guy.” – Questioner

My response, Psychopath is a mental health issue that is in the brain from birth more generally. Only 10% have experienced extreme child abuse. Commonly sociopaths improve by 45 years old after life-experience. So, a young sociopath is likely much more toxic than an older one. But I am referencing a trend not a have too, so take it as my thinking, which is that most of the time this is likely so but no such thing is commonly true about psychopaths, some can get better few may see any need too. Psychopaths know and are aware of their behavior and don’t really care this too can happen in a sociopath but is more likely to be something close to very bad social skills then evil desires to harm others, thus relate more to a biological life long mental health problem. But sociopaths that are generally something related to extreme child abuse as over half commonly lived lives of pain and aggression and the PTSD gift is becoming heartless.

I scored a #3 and most Psychopaths would be a #1. I could harm lots of people but I would likely do it in overreacting violently then do something like them that they may enjoy hurting others, my issue is wanting to throw a glass at someone for raising their voice to me. If you were kind to me I am generally calm. But scare me and you might get hit as violence is more my second nature. Let me help you understand. You, I am guessing had a fight or too in school, right? My first experience being expelled for fighting was 1 grade. I beat a kid that bit my art with his mouth. He was in the hospital for a bit.

I have a rage extreme when I fight like your death is my only chance at life so going too far is an ever possibly. My uncle was like me three gang members tried to mug him at an ATM and like I probably could he murdered them all. He is serving time do to what they said was not self-defense as he quickly overpowered them, being crazy strong happens in a few of my family like me. Several of my family are like me but likely either colder and care even less than ai do but lack the abuse to turn them violent as can be easier to me.

Yes, it is very hard sometimes. I likely care less than you. Most people that take the test that are like you, now I am just guessing in general not as if I actually know you, is 7 to 9. Most counselors would be 8 to 10 commonly and very codependent people are 15 to 20 which 20 is the highest. The top and the high number suffer from feeling too much the bottom makes the world suffer for them in a way but actually, both are in mental health need.

My response, You don’t see just me you see 20 years of mental health therapy.

My response, I also have a BA in psychology with sociology, and someone intervention training, and I also want to stop all abuse in the world as I know the harm it still has on my life. It is sad right that I don’t even get my feeling back I lost them as a small child cold, alone, and hiding under the tarp that covered the lumber that he had in our backyard. I explain in a post that may have been when I broke and became not vary caring.

My issues are lower care thus if angered I could overreact and why I strive to champion kindness. I don’t feel any need to be kind to most people but I know that it is a very honorable thing to do to be kind so I want to be better than my family or my mental health issues, I want to be will to power. So determined that not even being less caring will stop me from caring. My will is that of a Lion. That is one of a few reasons why I call myself the Goth Lion.

“Thanks for educating me. I’ll share this with you. I have PTSD and have had lots of counseling. When my folks passed away, there weren’t any tears. But when my first dog [and best friend] died I cried my heart out. I could never understand that. . . what it meant about me. But from her I got unconditional love, from my parents I got squat. I never could feel anything for them.” – Questioner

My response, I appreciate your acknowledgment. I understand quite well how to be crule but I am a person of honor so I desire to be kind.

Medical Neglect

As a child with parents in a cult, I experienced “Medical Neglect”

“Medical neglect is defined as a parent or guardian’s failure to provide adequate medical or dental care for a child. This is particularly applied to cases where medical care is needed to treat a specific injury or illness, and lack of that care seriously jeopardizes the child’s health. This can also be applied to instances where the child is in need of psychiatric help or emotional counseling, and the parent or caregiver refuses to provide it. Under law, medical neglect is considered to be a form of child abuse and is therefore illegal. Parents who are accused of medical neglect, or not providing their children with necessary medical care, can be charged with child abuse.” ref

What Counts as Medical Neglect?

“There are several situations that could be seen as medical neglect by law enforcement or CPS workers, which could result in charges against the parent. The list that follows is not complete, but will provide you with an idea of what kind of situations could result in accusations of medical neglect:

1. refusing to financially support the treatment required for a child’s acute illness, without a good reason.

2. ignoring the recommended advice of a doctor with regards to a treatable or curable condition.

3. failure to administer prescription medication to a child that has been prescribed by a doctor.

4. choosing not to seek medical help for a severely ill child. This could involve a lethargic child with a fever above 103 degrees, or an unresponsive child who has lost consciousness.

5. refusing to take a child to the emergency room when they have sustained a severe injury, like a broken bone, or deep laceration requiring stitches.

There are certainly other situations that CPS or doctors could claim are medical neglect. But these should cover the basics, and give you an idea of what potential scenarios could end in medical neglect charges.” ref

A little on my life: Video

The Tear that Binds

Tears well in the pools of my eyes, slipping free as if a welling from blow demands they move. Then, there they are, slipping over the edge of my eyes, falling with a heaviness that seems to strangle their way down inside me. I feel them sliding down now, a thousand knives of the past sparkle in my mind. Sliding on, I am unraveled with each new drop. Broken free now, they drip off my chin. How long it seems as they rush their way to the earth below. My head swims, throwing me far past this and I see memories flipping past, I am again lost in time… Mom, I will miss you. Love your son…

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

How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly. Ones who desperately need our help with the truth. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.”

And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion.

Any mind that thinks it is never wrong is in that fantasy are demonstrating how wrong in thinking it truly is. Religions are the things people do until they require facts. In this way religions are like organized lying. If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? Faith is the socially acceptable make-believe seen as reality.

Atheism or disbelief in things like ghosts, goblins, and gods is the thing people do when they require their beliefs to be based on reason and evidence derived from our provable reality, not myths or wild unfounded speculation. And belief in gods, monsters, and religions are the things people do until they require facts to justify their beliefs instead of just their emotions. Faith is commonly claimed as personal but this is avoiding its deep social connected group thinking nature as seen in faith believers that claim to completely have faith belief in a holy book they hardly know nor may have never fully read.

Shine Baby Shine!

I talk openly about my child abuse, not to be salacious but as a form of activism against this harm of our children, and to give hope to other broken kids like me. I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shining star of hope arising from the dark stained postcards of my past.

“Child’s Eyes”

I find a sanctuary of hope, in the Armageddon of my life.
I see a sweet young child and I think if we are all born with love.
Where do we learn to hate?
And why?
I look into the eyes of the young child Only finding a gentle love with an uncorrupted honesty.
I think,
how I wish not to know,
hate!
I wish only for the innocence of love.
I wish the dark postcards of my heart were blank
but how can a piece of wood turn back into a tree?
How can I forget the pain inside of me?
I wish to forget.
I wish to unlearn.
To be cleansed by love and set free.
I look down into the child’s eyes wishing for what I can never have again,
My own innocence, religion you robbed me of that!

Life is to damn short to not be kind. Stay strong.

Animism, Totemism, Shamanism, Paganism & Progressed organized religion: Video

Religion Evolution by Archaeology and Anthropology: Video

Animism as in that seen in Africa: 100,000 years ago: Video

Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?

List of Biblical verses that suggest God was a volcano

Did a 4,500–4,400-year-old Volcano In Turkey Inspire the bible god?

Yes, you actually are an Animist type of religionist.

“Well, you are not “you”… Without the trillions of organisms that comprise you. Those trillions of organisms too are atoms, Emergence, Smaller things make bigger things, Our microbiome, Controls us. We are a composition of other things. An individual isn’t truly an individual.” – Challenger

My response, I get it, you are an animist, cool it is one of the mildest religions but I need you to know I am not.

“So too is the makeup of everything… My words are based on science. Zero mysticism. Zero magic. Zero ghosts, Spirits, Souls, Etc. It’s a composition of quantum mechanics, neuroscience, anthropology, and biology.” – Challenger

My response, I hear you and I want you to know that you are not alone. Only 30% of animists believe in god.

“I’m irreligious… No magic!” – Challenger

My response, I know, I know, I get this subject like few do. irreligious animist is an interesting take I agree, see you are a special little star-dust. You, and understand I am just addressing what I can see as one with training in mental health therapy skills, you expressed animistically themed thinking in your views.

(And I say in my head, I am not attacking you about it, just highlighting the issue. Feel free to not accept my thinking on this as you can call animism whatever name you prefer.)

My response, I say to him, look, if you were an animist, cool. I am not all out against them anyway.

“Okay, although advanced enough science could be construed as such.” – Challenger

My response, I understand the motivations of fear

“I’m not afraid, if reasoning led to knowing that there is only finality… I would be 100% fine with it. Just as there is no such thing as nothingness.” – Challenger

My response, The clear beginning of animism is about 100,000 years old, so I get it has been with us so long we forgot it was not true.

“There is only, somethingness. Therefore that connotes infinite energy. Infinite energy = infinite possibilities. Therefore all possibilities. Simultaneously.” – Challenger

My response, Animism is found at levels of 90-100% in 35 of the world’s hunter-gathers living today, or something close to that. It’s a big game of telephone tag.

“It’s not, it is infinite energy= infinite possibilities. It’s pure Logic.” – Challenger

My response, Infinite energy = infinite possibilities, sounds like an animistic mindset that there could be other magical worlds/beings

“Keeping it simple… let’s play a game…” – Challenger

My response, Ok, I will start, Animism is a classic sign of a child’s egocentrism. For example, a child of 3 years old may have a favorite dolly toy on which they have bestowed human characteristics and emotions onto. The child believes that everyone around them can also see these human-like characteristics of the doll. The child only has one viewpoint, which is their own.

“Where are the borders of our Universe?” – Challenger

My response, And what answer justifies assumptions from a “natural only” (without agency) universe? Then to assume anything but that?

“Because we exist and probity is inherent to understanding Therefore wanting to identify our experience and the “why”?” – Challenger

My response, Look, I found proof of the first religious mythology with both types of general-themed deities now found throughout the world. Sky father and earth mother. So to recap, mommy and daddy. Can’t you see that?

“That doesn’t answer my question regarding the Universe though. You do believe in the existence of our Universe?” – Challenger

My response, Ok, the people of the past did not know science but they did know, family. So, to simplify it as we don’t have three hours for me to fully break it all down for you but thankfully I was prepared enough to through together a three-hour video instead. How sad it is that we now suffer under some ancient dud’s mommy issues. Not me I am a proud supporter of mental health therapy.

“I’m not referencing anything mythological. Just the Universe, is it finite or Infinite?” – Challenger

My response, What exactly do you mean by “Universe” are you asking a cosmology question?

“Correct, Our universe, the one We reside inside of.” – Challenger

My response, Well, finite or Infinite what would that matter in the what is a god question or answer?

“It matters because it provides us with additional insights, Probing.” – Challenger

My response, I do believe we exist and there is stuff around us best explained by science.

“Understanding is Learning.” – Challenger

My response, How does it change anything about the unknown labeled as a god?

“Ignore the term God for a moment, please.” – Challenger

My response, I am all from learning, I likely know more on religion them most religious scholars.

“The whole premise of God is that we are God individually. Don’t believe in external believe in internal.” – Challenger

My response, I always, Ignore the term God. lol That is my entire point, this conversation is to show you that.

“That is also mine. A misinterpretation. You are your own God.
That is what the Thesis is.” – Challenger

My response, So, I am my own unknown? I thought you believed better of me. lol

“You are you. And all of the trillions of things that make you.” – Challenger

My response, I am will to power, fuck god. I don’t need her.

“You. Exactly there is no mystical magic being.” – Challenger

My response, I am all I have and I am enough.

“Precisely. That is reality. Except. You are also me. And a tree. And a rock. At a fundamental level. That’s proven. By quantum mechanics.” – Challenger

My response, Right, again to me, I hear animism themes holding all that together that adds to your phenomenology to let you see science and nature in a (spiritual = animistic themed thinking) connected way that supports the feeling needs of our minds. So you know, the first known symbols for god related to stars.

“Stars are creation engines. All of our materials come from them.” – Challenger

My response, The bull symbol is a star-related symbol and that is in full display in ancient Egypt.

“Including us. Yup. Humanity has been searching externally for answers. To existence.” – Challenger

My response, Not that I believe but I think my future is in the stars. lol

“Which is weird. Because each of us exists. Therefore we are existence. Consciousness is existence.” – Challenger

My response, There is no need to believe anything magic like the religious claimed in the rolly-polly books. I fucking know it all I figured out the entire history of religion. I don’t know every detail but I know a lot, certainly enough to find stories of gods as nothing more than comic book mythology.

“Consciousness is just pattern recognition plus memory X actions. I personally agree I derive “faith” from my comic books.” – Challenger

My response, Right on and we are we because of it. lol

“I’m Batman.” – Challenger

My response, I wonder, do you think a theist is thinking of this, maybe I derive “faith” from my comic books and think they are much better at caring for the world they are associated with. News flash, your claimed god has not even bothered to stop over and say hi… lol

“The human brain consumes vast amounts of energies. Survival instinct is our Prime directive. Theism absolves individuals from burning as much energy (fact). Easy button. Less thinking. Less energy “wasted”. It’s akin to lifting a 1 pound weight (religion) aka lite on thinking. Versus 100 pounds. Science. Reasoning.” – Challenger

My response, I have to do other things but it was fun chatting.

Marquis Amon: “It is in my personal opinion that so many see animism as innate and thus not recognize it as a religion. It is a religion because the concept is not rooted in science. That anything that isn’t strictly metaphysical and science-based, it is a religion, likely animism. It is also in my opinion that the use of the term “spirituality” is virtually animism. That as you say animism is the belief in things having “spirit” or ultimately possess ‘energy’ and action not meant in the physiological context. Which whenever someone says energy and existing after death, that they are literal animists. People want to have a hypothesis about the universe’s creation and our own. Scientifically we see a path and through biology reverse engineered cells by their function at the most basic level. Technically that’s biochemistry, but serves the point that our existence came from things in the universe. Evolution shows us that it was a natural process. How was the universe created? I don’t know, I am perfectly content in admitting that, I have no need to make shit up. Nor does mad-up bullshit serve any purpose in living our lives. Is the amoeba religious? Of course not, is it alive? Yes. It focuses on living.”

Here was his reply when I posted what you said telling him you were addressing people in general.

Here you go: “Just a word of caution…”, “Science is a process…”, “Nothing more.”, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”, “We created Math, Science etc.”, “Out of a necessity.”, Existence existed before either system was created.” “The cosmos is not math or science.” “Those are tools to help us further understand.” “Math can be just as creative as language.” and “They’re just symbols.” – Challenger

Overall, I see myself as an Educator working through my resources like my website: damienmarieathope.com, and my atheist investigations often relate to my future book: The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots, and atheism, as well as my humanism activism, also can tend to related to this nonfiction novel as well.

My book is a journey from the first Superstition (at least 300,000 years ago) to Religion (after 4,000 years ago): “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots” (my book I am still rewriting to publish)

My book’s full name: “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots, Exposing The Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith.” (Simply, religions are mythology and it would be helpful if they were finally acknowledged as such)

Come on a journey to free thought where the war is against ignorance and the victor is a rational mind.

May I Help be the Voice of Reason

Heroes often hide among us until they express their act of bravely. May I too be so brave. I aspire to the heights of courage, supporting radical kindness in an unkind world. But I do so valiantly, knowing that we rise by helping each other. May I be a good human and support radical kindness as a positive proactive way to further real change in the world. If good people do nothing then nothing good may be done. Thus, I am responsible. I never wanted to be the one to work as an activist but a good person cannot sit silently by, doing nothing, when the atheist movement is in such need.

I was in college to be a mental health therapist, which I would have enjoyed. Unlike the shit, I have to endure as the out activist, like I am now. In fact, I would likely be financially well off but instead, I chose humanity and possible poverty if needed in order to help change the world as much as I can. It was the work mistake of my life but the proudest thing I have ever done in my life. We rise by helping each other. The pain of the mind is some of the most lasting pain just as freedom of the mind is some of the most lasting freedom. May I be someone who can make anyone feel like someone of value. Human-Kind. Be both…

Here is a comment to this from a Fan and Friend:

“Damien, like a heart surgeon or a singer like George Straight. You are a person that people depend on. It would be sad if you quit. But It would be understandable. It’s a hard life, standing up against the culture of delusion. How much suffering was involved to abolish slavery in this country? How long the fight against prejudice and bigotry been going on. How is it that these things are still around. Why is religion still popular. Because there are people out there that are bad and use other people’s weaknesses to benefit themselves. I call them parasites. We all know how hard it is to get rid of head lice. Or other diseases such as smallpox. It is changing, but how long will it take until religion will go down in history books, what will they call it. Christian and Islamic mythology. That’s why you do what you do. All I can say is, like a soldier who sacrificed his/her life for humanity. Does the word Hero have any meaning to you? Because that’s what people consider you to be. I wish only the best for you. Good luck my friend.”

Again, may I remind you, I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valueized Ethical Duty.

How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and its’ god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion.

Here are some of My Written Discussions, Responses and Debates

I tried to do things without help but now I must ask for help to get done what needs to be done. We rise by helping each other. Many fans have wondered how My Book is coming along” (all art represented is my art as well). I have been taking a break from reworking the writing in my book yet to be published, as I am overloaded with all the other things like event planning public as well as video blogging speaking I am doing. It’s a big task I took on, it’s also very complicated, it’s like a story of everything in the evolution of religion. It’s so hard for some people to see the big connections I make as it needs good critical thinking so it needs to be more high school less college. lol

I am trying to make everything a little easier, but I have doctorate-level thinking and I get that is a lot for some.

May we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

More than just atheists I hope my thinking inspires people to be rationalists who strive to use critical thinking putting reason at the forefront thus as their only master even over their ego. As well as from such thoughtfulness may we all see the need for humanism and secularism, respecting all as helpful servant leaders assisting others as often as we can to navigate truth and the beauty of reality. I strive to be and wish for others to be more than just atheists, may we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

Here are three video Chats With famous atheists:
1. Matt Dillahunty: discussing on atheism and philosophy
2. Aron Ra: discussing using anthropology/archaeology
3. David Silverman: discussing on firebrand atheists uniting

Aron Ra interviewing me on my “Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

My thinking on the Evolution of Religion: I always like to openly address my thinking, so no one has to guess my thinking. Here is my thinking, on the evolution of religion both a thing or possess that the elements or themes of religion to me most likely were formed, spread, remade, spread and remade some more repeat, and repeat, and so on. But I want to make it clear these are my reasoned speculations of what

I believe the evidence and reasonable points of conjecture or inference put together helps explain the formation of religion in human prehistory to history. I also wish to address that some things I am epistemically certain mean ABC. Others, I think are the most likely of with the best of a few elements or most quality that fits what can be known or reasoned. It could also involve explaining the best thinking relating to what it seems the evidence could be suggesting.

Thus, the beast even a few somewhat similar possibilities than even less I have things that I only am sure but the evidence seems to employ, that to me, I thought just explain it as one loose reference whole of the course of religion total thus looking far above seeing it all played out like a family tree. I am taking on the entire institution all over the world throughout all time so forgive me, if I have to shorten it down to one book, not bigger than one could hold, and my goal is always the truth.

This will not change if later I am shown as wrong in some lines of thinking. I desire it to truly know. And as my goal is not focusing on one religion, nor one country, nor one region, nor any limited expanse of space or time that could relate to the evolution. I looked from before stone tools to Jesus and the bible and beyond.

I wish to offer what is worth to help others in our fight as reality-revolutionaries as atheists. Someone has to stick up for reality and I proudly accept the job. I am not saying religions can’t be fun as a social event or add people in faking their way through but in our law decisions or altering any humanitarian effort to help all in need. So, while religion, in general, could potentially be fun as movie plots I dislike hearing mythology misclassified as something reasonable as if it is even comparable to today’s science. We as a society should stand strong from such threats to our shared humanity.

Personally, I prefer to be around people that are either safe for me or are willing to try to be. If what one calls love, lacks respect, few would be convinced that there was love involved.

Hate is an ugly thing to wear in front of others.

I am a Reality Revolutionary! Strongly standing up against pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality!

One of the lowest memories of my childhood abuse didn’t even involve direct physical abuse. Rather the of the things that hit me the hardest was the deep profound realization that I was not loved by my father. I was less of importance to him than the lumber he has stacked up in the back yard.

I came to this realization, huddled, wet, and shivering. I was starving as usual no food for me until later tonight whenever that is my father got back from picking up my brother and sister from the babysitter. As if a wet dog looking to hid in ant refuge available. All I was afforded was a one-foot by two-foot space cramped in between the lumber as there was just enough room so I could hide at least a little from the thunderstorms all around. The water was wet and cold. I am as if holding myself from touching this invading water as if it is not satisfied with my small pitiful attempt at escape. There I sit with the sharp boards ever pushing in my back.

I felt only the hint of a tear as I think about my younger sister and brother somewhere else kept safe, warm, fed… Not for me. I have to endure this inhumane fate all the while knowing that they are love unlike me. I am the unwanted thing, the problem, the bother. I feel the tears as I realized fully, I am not simply alone I am not loved at all. I then feel myself brake and I have never been the person I was. I am a survivor of much unkindness and why I so passionately promote it. Please strive to be kind. End child abuse!

House all the homeless for free, now! It is the least we can do if we want to say we have a just society, right?

De-value the Homeless?

You can do as your humanity moves you, but me, I am on the side of the homeless and I am likely always on the side of the oppressed or being treated with injustice. I also have no time for the hate of people. My people are those who are kind to everyone. Be kind…

Think before you speak, others are listening.

I was once told by my sister that I was ruining the family for exposing my religious dad cheating on my mom. Other words of kindness from her involve me telling her about my sexual abuse to which she sarcastically said, “what? Did mommy touch your pee-pee?”

May I be counted as one among the brave?

Always above everything be teachable and never limit who or what you can learn from. I learned the sweet beauty kindness, after a beginning in life that quite often lacked it profoundly. May I be much better than what was done to me and may I forever be open to learning and not just one type of education, for there is value in both humanity and reason. May I be brave enough to be kind!

End abuse… Please!

I was starved as a small child but I sought out information on what grasses or other similar things around me were edible. I have eaten grass due to hunger. I have eaten dog food due to hunger. I ate random berries I thought could be eaten without being sick and I was limited though, I could only forage from the area I was living in of orange county a part of southern California, inner-city California. I cry thinking anyone could do this to any child and sadly that child was me. End abuse… Please!

May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand “thought” or truly use reason logically and it is such vulnerable innocent minds, which religious fanatics are fond of forcibly coercing, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. So my main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults’ faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if it’s a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

My mom is dead but I don’t believe in any heaven or hell. Live now

I don’t believe in afterlives but if there was such a thing we all go to one heaven as all religions or no religions show similar near-death experiences and only 10% have so-called negative near-death experiences. But from all my studying I have learned that almost all religions today have a shared set of mythology theme connections going back around 7, 000 years ago. It was spread from 6,000 to 4,000 years ago. Anyway, my point is that they believed in an earth mother and a sky father but even they got that from earlier ideas and mythology originally around 100,000 years ago. Humans learned somehow or related way from the Neandertals to bury the dead and about something that the humans turned into the persuasion that involves the belief in spirit afterlife. And science has observed children before the age of 7 do seem to be fond of animistic type thinking. I think it is thus natural to believe in spirits and souls. I also understand all this, so I don’t believe it.

“We mourn over what could have been and should have been, and death seals it by saying “this is all it is.” – We mourn over what could have been and should have been, and death seals it by saying “this is all it is” – Debra Van Neste

As I look back on my life it is amazing how much I have changed or become. At 17 years old I was in a world of ever-present danger to react with acts of aggression, even some violence but not on the weak. How wonderful that hardly anyone today can believe such things of me.

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”

My general thinking in relation to my Axiology assumptions:

Intrinsic Value:

(such as human rights)

Extrinsic Value:

(such as relating to its accuracy, truth, quality, what value that is produced, Its use-value, or an added level of its agreeableness or desirability to it)

Systemic Value:

(such as how things may improve or worsen in relation to time. Things like rape rightly motivate our outrage not simply for the harm of the moment of the violation. No, most thinkers mildly inclined towards ethics could see. Such an awareness or expanded effort to understanding it could realize that the tragic harm or strain it can have throughout a lifespan. It is this and even more, like how it puts more fear or stress on others who hear of this, see this, or personally/emotionally connected to them. Too many people under such assault to one’s dignity that rape is. And for those victims of such oppression, too often it brings all kinds of potential body shame or self-hatred. Yet it doesn’t end there, others just seem to stop caring altogether. I feel for them all. Not to mention I am sure I would miss some that others could add. Etc., Etc., Etc.)

Let’s make it simple:

Atheism is the “reality” position.

Theism is the “anti-reality” position!

I don’t need religion or its fake gods.

“Reason is my only master.”

I am will to power!

Don’t let ANGER become an unethical behavior.

I want to make a difference in the world and try to bring hope and new thinking to others where I can. I also wish to champion kindness as often as I champion challenge in thinking and hope for wisdom as much as reason or doubt. I see it is easier to break others down than help them see a way back up. More than just my disbelief in religion and gods or all woo-woo, I hope people get how much I care about humanity and all the different people who are apart of it. We rise by helping each other. May I be thoughtful and care, as well as seek knowledge and share. May we all be good humans to ourselves and others.

It is just as important to challenge one’s own behavior as to challenge the behavior of others.

I don’t generally assume everyone agrees to the facts and that it is often upon me to help them navigate truth. How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly. Ones who desperately need our help with the truth. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.” And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. I am not the thing abuse made, I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past. If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

Am I a survivor?

I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze. May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liars and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become one’s path. I am a survivor! I am a Thriver!

I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three-letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)! Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug, to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

If there was a god, then it is evil and enjoys our suffering or an uncaring god that sits and does nothing.

Thus, even if there was a god, I would never worship it.

However, I am also for a Free Secular Society. I am not for oppression or abuse of religious believers and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish for the end of faith and believing in myths and superstition, I wish this by means of informing the willing and not force of the unwilling. I will openly challenge and rebuff religious falsehoods and misunderstandings as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior.

On my death, I plan on donating all my writing, art, etc., or anything of importance to atheism or humanism and will give it all to atheist and humanism organizations if they want it.

“Blasphemy is not a crime, it’s even a duty to tell people the lies of religion.” – Gerrit Jan Boerrigter

My brother sent me a picture of my mom and it is so sad, she looks dead already. I can only cry. She is not responsive and her consciousness has already past. Now we simply wait for her body that is left to end. I have researched the religion phenomena in human prehistory spaning all space and time to understand it all and now don’t believe in any religion nor its animism thinking that often linger on even in those that reject gods and/or religions. I am not animistic anymore as I see it as out of our confusions of love and fear. I am fine with just feeling the real things thank you very much for your care but I am not an animist so don’t bother resisting cow even science proves our elements keep living on even if different. I just hear our frailty to want t keep existing. I wan to exist in the positive change I helped add to the world. I know that is not enough for some ut I tell you it means the world to me. I am an atheist I don’t fear any fantasy afterlife anything, rather it is now that means everything. May we all be a shining example of alive humanity. But who am I, just another human experiencing our fragility. We all will die but will all truly live. We rise by helping each other. May I forever be counted among those who do work for a better kinder world. This is it.

It is amazing how much people wish to deny the position of truth.

Energy = god, spirits, and/or afterlife? NO, and such thinking is misplaced animism magical thinking nonsense.

Yes, you need to know about Animism to understand Religion

“Do Epic Shit”

(((Content Warning, I talk real about some of my abuse)))

My dad just called about my mother who has been very ill is about to die very soon. My mom has Alzheimer’s not is unresponsive and lays in bead 24-7. I have a rocky time with my mother from her spanking me then telling my father and he would spank me again. And she did not stop my father from abusing me either with her knowing him ad telling on me anyways to me is more harm. She also sexually abused me with excessive enemas and putting her finger in my ass as part of it. Then as she too was being abused by my father she had enough telling us she was leaving. I was so happy I could burst. Well, my bubble burst already when she walked out the door leaving me and my younger brother and sister. I was so broken I thought I would die. I had told my sister and brother that my mom told me we were leaving.

How stupid I was to think her saying she was leaving that we would be going with her. Among us children, we had drawn straws, and How overjoyed I was when my younger brother drew the shortest straw… I didn’t go live with my mom until almost 13 and my abuse from my father got 10 times worse. My father even broke my sacrum and tail bone area by spanking me with a 2×4. I was as you would guess a little resentful to them both for a long time but my mother unlike the scum my father is apologized and strived to make amends to me. So now I am feeling all kinds of feelings from my past. I feel for my mom leaving but I am happy she will go quick. Having Bias Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of work.

So I call on the world to: Do no Harm and do Help

I am a positive person by choice and action and work to improve myself and others if I can. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well. A lot of people may think my schooling is in philosophy or anthropology but it was schooling for counseling. Thus, because I have schooling in psychology as well as I am an atheist/humanist writer that persuasion is my guiding thinking of things others may not focus on. I am currently about to publish an atheist book called: “The Tree Of Lies and Its Hidden Roots, exposing the evolution of religion and removing the rationale of faith.”

Be a Champion of Humanity

Normalize people being nice to you without assuming they wanna sex. I strive to be nice to everyone but out of humanity, not sex seeking. I am not claiming to not have sex needs but it is not why I do kindness. I think people of high character should express humanity as freely as others seem to champion hate. I see so many people who fear the plague and yet have a sickness in their humanity that doesn’t bother them at all. I see the ones without fear, the commonly maskless much worse as many champions that sickness of humanity to the depravity that removes all good, not only having a deep sickness in their humanities even than the first but lowly express this same contempt for their own lives. Not to mention their profound depths of selfishness/self-centeredness of not caring how their risky behaviors harm us all.

You can choose to be anything, so please choose to be kind.

(((Warning contains violence, animal harm, and child abuse)))

Here are the three traumatic things my father did to me:

1. THE CHRISTMAS TREE EVENT

My extremely religious fanatic father in a fit of rage and religious anger because my mom dared to buy a Christmas tree and celebrate a pagan holiday like Christmas in his godly home, my father took a long hatchet or an ax (I can’t quite remember which) and Chopped up the Christmas tree with lights and ornaments on it and presents under the tree. I was around 6 years old, just to add a reference. I actually thought he was next going to hurt my mom or us too, it was terrifying. I was not sure if someone was going to get killed next, he was in such a religious rage. Then with the strings of lights dragging across the floor and ornaments rolling everywhere, he crammed parts of the tree into our fireplace. All three of us kids and my mom where crying but my mom begged him at too least save the presents, saying we can give them out on a different day, PLEASE. He calmed just a bit for a fleeting moment and conceded to only save them to not waste money. The smell was strong coming from the fireplace with the thick smoke of undried wood and pine nettles in the air. Speaking of pine nettles, they were popping out of the fireplace and starting small poofs of fire on the carpet below. now I feared the house burning as hot as my father’s religious rage. So, then I cried out to him father please put out the fire it is going to cause the carpet to burn and could burn down the house. He turned to look at me with the long hatchet or an ax. As he turned to me I say his eyes and felt cold run through me, as he had an evil glint in his eyes like saying, “what would make that a bad thing” but then he seemed to catch some amount of sanity and started rushing to stop the fire that threatened to kill us all.

2. The End OF THE CAT

My father was mad at my sister and got his bow and arrow, gathering us kids into the back yard to be taught a lesson of following his orders, I was around 8 or 9 years old just for reference. I thought in terror one of us was going to be harmed or killed I feared deeply for my sister. There we were my brother 5 years younger, my sister 2 years younger and me standing in a line my father stood a few feet away. Next, he pulled back the bow and arrow and the terror increased he looked at us all individually, my brother and sister were shaking I told them don’t look as my father said I am now going to shoot my sister’s cat. My sister was screaming, “NO, please don’t kill her” while she closed her eyes tight to not see my father’s inhumanity. My eyes were open while hers were closed then to my horror my father with evil glee shot the cat. It went halfway then the cat took off running, scampering up over the fence and disappeared screaming. My father laughed and I feared and hated him even more than I ever had before. He was a monster.

3. The 2 X 4 SPANKING

I was around 7 or 8 years old just for reference. My father and his friends were at the table. I was playing under the table because they were avoiding me, and I wanted them to play they had been reading the bible for hours and I had nothing to do. My extremely religious fanatic father was a would not let us have almost any toys nor could we listen to the radio if it was not his religious shows nor tv at all but one hour a week for a nature show called Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. Nor could we go to a friend’s house or have friends over either as he wanted to ensure nothing not religious occurred. A side note we did not celebrate any holidays nether was a big deal made on our birthdays either as my father said all that takes away from glorifying god and acting if a human was in some way special. Back to me under the table, I started taping the men on the legs then scampering away so they could not get me. Doing this I only little more than a few hand swats. They were too busy reading bible verses. So, I started hitting them in the legs than one in the crotch. I did not realize how much that hurt I was just playing rough to be noticed. The man yelped and stood up my father asked what happened he said your sun hit my crotch but don’t worry about it he is just a kid I don’t think he was trying to hurt me he has been hitting our legs playing with us for attention.

My father said no he must learn, and I am going to hurt him, so he never does that again. He grabbed my arm hard pulling me into the garage saying I am going to spank you good raging with anger. He had a long wooden paddle he hit me with almost every other day. He was out of control he had me pull down my pants and bend over. I was crying and shaking in terror. He hit me hard a few times then slammed the paddle into a worktable breaking it. I then thought ok it’s over I was punished and now he broke the paddle. No, he was far from done hitting me he had just started. He was even angrier as it broke. Saying don’t think you are now going to get it easy or something like that. He said that old paddle was too soft of a wood good thing I have been working on an Oak one but haven’t had a chance to test it out yet so you of the three children get to experience it first. I was trembling and already in pain from the hits he had already one. I cried please no but he haply hit me, again and again, each time switching to hit the table with a terrorizing crack saying see this is way better wood. I don’t know how many times he did this, 5 to 8 times, I guess. Then it cracked and was broken too from hitting the worktable. He was even angrier his beloved new paddle. I was sobbing and falling to the ground in pain and fear, thinking what now! He said to get back up there I am not done with you yet. I was scared out of my wits what was he going to use now then I saw his eyes land on a baseball bat size of 2×4.

My heart dropped. He said I am going to use this 2×4 on you and then you will get what you deserve. He hit me and I could hear it cutting the air all the way until it slammed into my rear and upper legs the 2 or so times before my hands went up as the pain was so extreme, like being burned, This was until I in terror put my hands over my rear to shield myself. It was involuntary to protect myself as much as I could. Then the 2×4 slammed into my hands and they almost went numb with pain. He was enraged, saying get your hands out of there then swung higher I will just hit somewhere else that is when with a crack he broke my tailbone and end of my sacrum in my lowest part of my back at the end of my spine it was the most excruciating pain I had ever experienced in my life I feel to the floor in sheer agony shaking like a dying thing. He looked down at me holding the 2×4 in his hand like a bat saying I guess now you have had enough I hope you learned your lesson. I to this day at 48 still feel pain in my tailbone and end of my sacrum. I have had to pain shots to help elevate this, but I have never healed right.

Positive Parenting and Atheist Parenting Info

Spanking Debate: Positive vs. Negative Discipline

I am Anti Spanking

Father is an “F” word

Ho Father…

I want you to understand what I went through and how your parenting affected me and what it produced. So you can understand what I want is your shame and what evil you need to make amends for.

You may have been my father but you were never my DAD.

I felt fear as a child because of you.

I had to steal to eat as a child because of you.

I felt stupid as a child because of you.

I had to eat dog food as a child because of you.

I had to go to the bathroom outside like a dog as a child because of you.

I felt shame as a child because of you.

I had to break into my own house as a child because of you.

I had no friends as a child because of you.

I was made unsafe as a child because of you.

I felt unlovable as a child because of you.

I felt everything I did was wrong as a child because of you.

I felt mistrust as a child because of you, wrong as a child because of you.

I was humiliated for who I was as a child because of you.

I felt alone because you had babysitters for my brother and sister and not me as a child because of you.

I learned to value hate over love as a child because of you.

I was abused as a child because of you.

I was neglected as a child because of you.

I was abandoned as a child because of you, you took me to a store and intentionally left me.

I was misused made to be your masseur and slave as a child because of you.

I felt I could never be good enough as a child because of you.

I was made into a secondary dad to my siblings and punished for their wrongs as a child because of you.

I never knew love from my father but I did understand hurt as a child because of you.

I lost my sweet innocence as a child because of you.

I feared life more than death at times as a child because of you.

Instead of looking into my father’s eyes and seeing love, I saw selfish darkness.

You committed many sins against me but most of all your biggest problem is you are selfishness. I think that has more to do with why you committed such atrocities and have the problems still today.

so FUCK You for fucking up me…

In my life, I was rapidly abuse, spanked, hit physically, lacked shelter and medically neglected, not properly clothed, emotionally and psychologically abused, abandoned, severely neglected, starved, etc. etc. etc.

I have overcome a lot, had much counseling but I never got to say FUCK YOU ex-father. You didn’t win. I have….

YOUR ex-son

p.s. This is very heartfelt and raw for me, it is me talking to the fucker that was my father but never a dad. I have not talked to him intentionally for about 20-30 or so years…

“Sometimes we just do what is right even if it is hard but being kind in this way is a gift to your own humanity.”

There is only one way to become a philosopher?

“Philosophy (‘love of wisdom’) is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.” ref

Instead of reading other philosophers to become a philosopher, I read the subjects explaining each philosophy then took or borrowed from the subject ideas. I then arranged it or remade it into something all mine.

Debunking Ancient Aliens and other Unsupported Pseudoscience Beliefs

Again I wonder, Who’s America, is This?

Grief Beyond Belief — How Some Atheists Are Dealing With Death

“In a society that reflexively copes with death by using religion, grieving atheists are turning to each other. How do you deal with death — your own, or that of people you love — when you don’t believe in God or an afterlife? Especially when our culture so commonly handles grief with religion… in ways that are so deeply ingrained, people often aren’t aware of it? A new online faith-free grief support group, Grief Beyond Belief, is grappling with that very question. And the launch of the group — along with its rapid growth — presents another compelling question: Why do so many atheists need and want a separate godless sub-culture… for grief support, or anything else? Grief Beyond Belief was launched by Rebecca Hensler after the death of her three-month-old son. Shortly after Jude’s death, she discovered Compassionate Friends, an online network of parents grieving the deaths of their children. But even though Compassionate Friends is not a religious organization, she says, “I often felt alienated by assurances from other members that my son was in heaven or by offers to pray for me, comforts that were kindly meant but that I do not believe and cannot accept.” And she knew there were others who felt the same way. (Conflict of interest alert: Hensler and I are friends, and I actively encouraged and supported her in launching this group.)” ref

“So about a year later, she started a Facebook page, Grief Beyond Belief. And the group grew and flourished far beyond her expectations. Once the atheist blogosphere heard about the group, news about it spread like wildfire, and membership in the group grew rapidly, rising to over a thousand in just the first couple of weeks. The group is open to atheists, agnostics, humanists, and anyone without belief in a higher power or an afterlife, to share memories, photos, thoughts, feelings or questions, and to give others support, perspective, empathy, or simply a non-judgmental ear. And it’s also open to believers who are questioning, struggling with, or letting go of their beliefs. As long as you don’t offer prayers, proselytize for your religious beliefs, or tell other members that their dead loved ones are in a better place with the angels, you’re welcome to join.” ref

Grief Beyond Belief

HAVE WE NO DECENCY: IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE DINGELL

“By Grief Beyond Belief Founder Rebecca Hensler “Maybe he’s looking up. I don’t know.” President Donald Trump, about the late Representative John Dingell Jr. “I’m preparing for the first holiday season without the man I love. You brought me down in a way you can never imagine and your hurtful words just made my healing […] CONTINUE READING” ref

WHEN BACK-TO-SCHOOL IS A TIME OF GRIEF

“By Rebecca Hensler, Founder of Grief Beyond Belief Back to school. The words have so many meanings for so many people… For educators like me, it’s back to the joys and struggles of the school year. For retailers, it’s a season of school-supply and dorm furniture sales. And for most parents of kids between six […] CONTINUE READING” ref

THE GRIEVING NONBELIEVER’S BILL OF RIGHTS

“by Rebecca Hensler, Founder of Grief Beyond Belief Many Grieving Person’s Bills of Rights are now available on the internet, usually modified from The Mourners Person’s Bill of Rights by Alan D. Wolfelt, PhD, Director of the Center for Loss and Life Transition. One thing the various versions have in common is a passage that […] CONTINUE READING” ref

Marquis Amon:

“Dear friend, this is a very dark time and your virtue shines brightly. That you champion many great causes, including scientific advancement in medical care. We are all truly just mortal, having one another and our time here to share. That ultimately, it does come to an end. Alas, emotional intelligence is something of great beauty and great pain. It inspires us to act with compassion and yet at the same time causes us great pain. We can find no comfort in lies that religions offer, there is nothing that can avert such fate… But every day, we can strive to make the world a kinder place. One where we value each other and grasp just how fragile and rare life really is…”

I understand the call religious hopes can bring. I get people have fear. I see it all as a part of our emotionalness. I too can at least connect with the feelings as it is the feelings we all share. This is likely some religious-themed song. I don’t even know the words but the hunting theme seems to call deeply to my grief for the loss of my mother. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEizKmZlUAw

I was always different and you looked down on me.

My mom’s passing ignites the theater of my mind where my childhood is stuck on repeat.

I knew I was really different by high school in how I thought and what things I valued even though I needed years more therapy at that point. And this positive difference was there for all to see, even to the point others voiced how they had noticed. At my school in southern California, the other students would separate into segregated type groups of similar people for either race, music, class, high achievers, artists-writers-creative types, drugs used, gang affiliation, band people, or sports. I interacted with them all. I never cared for the world’s labels all I ever see is fellow dignity beings just like me and for this, I have been shunned as odd.

What we do not understand we could come to fear. Left unchecked what we fear we often learn to hate. What we hate we may seek to destroy! We should seek to love diversity or accept differences, not simply fear or hate people because we think they are different or we do not understand them. People are not their beliefs; people deserve dignity and a human right to exist. Whereas beliefs do not have, any dignity owed them nor any right to exist. I do not nor will not respect faith, gods, or religions. However, I do strive to respect people even ones who may be believers in faith, gods, or religions. Simply, I value the sanctity of “human rights” and the dignity of every person to self-define their beliefs and do not attack people because of what they believe. I say attack thinking not people and work towards understanding and respect even with those we disagree; although, this understanding and respect does not fully extend to those whose behaviors that violate people’s dignity and human rights.

God-Belief in some general ways can be summed up ontologically as a proposed non-empirical-being. Some are further attached to yet more non-empirical proposed things, attributes or behaviors, and events, even thinking that somehow are attributed to this proposed non-empirical-being. And this is proposed non-empirical-being is offered for our potential choice of what to believe with proposed non-empirical proposed support as if this is sound empirical evidence. And all I think is, bro, do you know any science and wow, this is going to take a few minutes?

My life story is not comfortable to hear and was much worse to be the person made to be there. Say what is hard to hear, and say what is true. Because through wisdom, I will understand, just what to do.

Let me not forget to say please get counseling if you have struggles. It is not a sign of weakness to have feelings, rather it is that caring feelings we all wish and hope will be driving motivations for those in power because if instead, they seek the power itself we all will suffer inhumanely.

I am ever aware words matter they can build castles to protect or dungeons to torment. Thus I think of all I say critically. Such as what we write, would you feel proud of your support for a victim, or was it just advice-giving to someone not in a safe dynamic for offering different outlooks? Never think what would an ethical board say or my next in power. I would like to think as if my life was out for the world to see, naked, bare, every and every action matters, everything including every word. I am not asking for an answer as this is my philosophy pondering to improve my own self-mastery. We don’t like to think on things that feel bad but to get better, that is just the work one has to do. I would say I would stop being so didactic but my mom just died last night and I am a bit emotional. I see now my path is a friend to all.

I am beyond survival or even thriving I am at the precipice of an enriching human flourishing.

As to my victim/survivor status, I often say, “I am, will-to-power”

“This statement if you don’t know is a prominent concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, describing what Nietzsche may have believed to be the main driving force in humans. Alfred Adler incorporated the will to power into his individual psychology. This can be contrasted to the other Viennese schools of psychotherapy: Sigmund Freud’s pleasure principle (will to pleasure) and Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy (will to meaning). Each of these schools advocates and teaches a very different essential driving force in human beings. Macht, within Nietzsche’s philosophy, closely tied to sublimation and “self-overcoming”, the conscious channeling of Kraft for creative purposes.” ref

I would just call it a value-driven life, or living and breathing axiological awareness, or simpler to understand one could say that is the embodiment of full self-mastery of one so ego-removed that they truly a friend to the world…

Here is a poem I wrote at 17 years old, I think.

“Change”

Sitting back I realized all the bad of which I have done.

I am sorry to the world for I am not a mean man.

I am sorry for all the lives hurt by me or any lives I could have ruined for I am not an evil man.

I am thankful at my willingness to change.

Sitting back I now realize all the bad I have done but I can change, and I will.

Long ago I had to forgive someone who allowed me to be abused, myself.

As a survivor of extreme child abuse. I am deeply offended when people say that I must forgive my vile abusers and tormenters. Wrong. I don’t owe those who violated me anything.

I am, will to power.

My number one complaint about my experience with mental health therapy, where I believe they failed extremely, was not creating an empowering domain for the victim of extreme child abuse, they were being entrusted to. To me, and I speak with a BA degree in psychology, a natural therapist nature, humanist drive and a humanitarian heart wishing kindness for the world, understand that the best way is to see the client and therapist interactions as a form of letting a person create a safe place in themselves. Understanding that our relationship with them is not as overseers but as teachers, inspiration providers new outlook developers and as always just another fellow dignity being. One worthy of respect and honor. We need ethics and humanity as our guiding light. We are not to just be a listing ear, nor just an advice giver but rather an impossibility remover.

To me, your driving goal as a mental health care worker of child victims of abuse is to strive to be, forever, for them a dragon killer: in other words an impossibility remover. An impossibility remover expresses a “Value Conscientiousness” whereas, a Value-blindness can give rise to Sociopathic evil.

To truly grasp my axiological thinking, expresses a “Value Conscientiousness”, you have to read: “The New Science of Axiological Psychology” (Value Inquiry Book 169) (Hartman Institute Axiology Studies). I hope one day my axiological theorizing is added to the Value Inquiry Books of acknowledgment. Here is the book: link

As a skilled anarchist theorist I deeply understand undue power dynamics as something to be ever aware of. Thus I see there is no such thing as a true leader that is not known as such by everyone else. Because it is no leader that simply demands such a title.

As a survivor of extreme child abuse. I am deeply offended when people say that I must forgive my vile abusers and tormenters. Wrong. I don’t owe those who violated me anything. I am will to power.

Beware artists like me, we mix with all classes of people. lol

Leadership should be earned by exemplary example, never just given away. Leadership, like respect, needs to be earned, not conferred.

Almost all my thinking is my own or influenced by my wife (Shayna Marie AtHope), my best friend. But if I had to pick something that helped me really get moving on my path now it is three books that added in helping to change my life: Emotional intelligence (how to become the most amazing person), Becoming Naturally Therapeutic (how to be therapeutic as a way of life in everything you do) and The Soul of Liberty (on universal ethical standards).

Marquis Amon: “It is in my opinion that Damien only needed to forgive himself in terms of reflection. That this statement is about knowing what he knows now, and who he was in the past. He is a champion of those who are abused(among many things) and he may felt he at least in part failed himself. Yet your abuse was part of the reason you became who you are. “When I saw abuse, I was glad it wasn’t me. Now, I don’t want it to be anybody.” That is what I think he means, failing to stand up for himself. Yet it wasn’t his fault, as a child. We must protect our children, everyone…It is that we can not change the past, he needed to close the door at that chapter of his life, I think.”

Surprise, it’s just Me.

What I mean generally by my saying, “Long ago I had to forgive someone who allowed me to be abused, myself,” relates to when people, unthinkingly, tell me, I have to “forgive!” I say I did long ago. then they ask well then why don’t you talk to your father if you forgave him? I say, oh, now I see your confusion, I only forgave one person in all this vileness as they were not at any way at falt so they needed my support so I have doon all I can to earn that person’s respect. Because I had before like others, unjustly judged him and despised him as well as looked down on him unjustly. They ask well who was that one special person that was there for you when no one else even carried? I take a deep proud slow breath as if the end of a life’s long journey in this question. It seems to shine in my eyes as I lovingly say, ME.

You dare, ask me why I care?

FUCK, someone goddamn, had too…

In an anarchist philosophy group I am in someone asked us as actual anarchists, how do we think of anarchism?

Here is my response:

“The deep love of humanity and the humility to realize that I am just another dignity being like everyone. It, to me, is humanity living ethically and humanitarianly. It is the honest acceptance that no one actually owns the Earth thus we must share it communally and fairly as possible.”

May I be so brave that I can be kind, even though the unkindness I experienced. Even pat my limitations and my ego. May I be different, may my care be as if a cup running over. May I champion love stronger than the hate of the world. May my life not just be the movement of change, may I inspire a new set of caring deep thinkers that demand a better world for us all. Life is short, so be as kind as you can.

I am the Goth Lion!

There is nothing weak in me, rather I choose the honored-filled life of ones that are kind, my true heroes, I love you all. My humanity champions of the world’s hope, may we all be like you, brave enough to be kind. I am no one special, just a candle in the dark.

I have more respect for someone penniless than one with millions that treat others like shit. I do not give a shit about your illusionary status you think others are classed into. I never followed that dumb shit as a child, why the hell would I welcome it now? Hi there, I am just your friendly neighborhood anarchist-humanist. So, I guess sometimes you refer to me as a globalist or utopian humanitarian. The call of freedom, equality, justice, morality, mutual ade, and humanity does not lessen in value due to how attainable they are.

My people are the kind.

Value-blindness Gives Rise to Sociopathic evil.

What is so special about Kindness anyway?

Once, I was so foolish, value blind, I added harm, and now, how different I see things, with a value consciousness. I am among the treetops they can’t touch me now for I fly free I love you all but I am just me. May we hear the cry of the silent suffer in oppression, free them now. Kindness my sturdy tower my breath of life in the final hour. Kindness is my favorite lover but let us not forget she is also my best friend. The smile of a life lived in love shines across my face as I smile I remember how far I have come. Kindness is king.

I would take on the emotional weight of the world, just to save one child from abuse.

You have been lied to all your life, YOU ARE VALUABLE.

Can you believe that only 15 years ago, in an atheist meet up in southern California. I was told by the group leader, in front of everyone, well 8 people. He was talking down to me like I don’t have any value at all. I was just taking up space. And that I needed to stop talking so much as no one really cares what crazy ideas you think. Did I say, so you now speak for the group? How is this not seen as a problem? Then he said, with a sarcastic shrug, saying, well everyone has had enough of Damien, right??? Several long seconds went by in cold silence. I was dismissed. I then head, well actually I really do enjoy hearing Damien. Then he grew upset. How dare, anyone, defend me… Everyone just looked around. I said. I appreciate your time and now it is time for me to go. I decided I would do it all on my own.

As always, I will be the better person and strive to stay kind.

Animals, I love them all and they love so much better than humans. I know I am a high functioning sociopath but I never use it as an excuse to not be kind. And, just for the record here, I am a proud Anti-Fascist. Take care.

If you were taken to Court, would you be convicted of a life lived in love?

When I was young I was not shown the beauty of kindness. Now that I understand, I can’t imagine a beautiful life without it. How odd a world we live in, where I have been ridiculed and made fun of, simply because I want a kind world. Hard times can take a long time to heal and are no good to feel, but they have shown me the need to help and the importance of care. Even though the valiant have fallen and the darkness is all but closing in, may love, hope, and kindness always win. The world has many paths. These paths may be built with different levels of permanency — leveled, paved roads and built-up sidewalks will last centuries if we suddenly ceased to exist (which I hope we don’t), while paths through the forest or grasslands will grow over and disappear, if not used and maintained. What kind of trace will you leave? I, myself, plan on changing the world. I will be forever honored that my best friend is Damien Marie AtHope. I love people who can see the value of others. If you could change the world, wouldn’t YOU?

My vote, if anyone is asking, is that we give back all native lands, but I know, I scared you, how about we start with Mount Rushmore. I sure want to see what amazing thing they will do with it. Well, as soon as posable, or when you are not busy illegally colonizing. I just hope they don’t treat us as shamefully as we sadly still do, wait, that fucking pisses me off. FUCKING stop that shit now. Now, where was I??? Oh, yea, I am so ever thankful and happy to let everyone off the edge of their seat but Native peoples of the Americas not only have much we need to humbly learn from as we live on their land don’t you know. I think it would only be fitting too. I don’t know, find something great from all the wonderful things in the many diverse tribal cultures. The trib people of this land are the original, do remember, hint it’s not a white man yelling at a person of color, that fool telling them to go home his red gat shining in the sun claims to want to make America great again, so I assume he means return it to tribal peoples. I even bet they give us a better deal on rent than the capitalists. But who am I? Just an anarchist-humanist.

Religious Freedom, I think…

I laugh to myself at people who don’t think tribal people could keep us safe. Well, I don’t know, Do you remember, what the central issue is? Did they kick you off your land, then remove more of them and call it yours? I know it all sounds scary but kids it is real and needs to be amended. I don’t know how we think we have done with two world wars. I look forward to it. But people will say, that is too much. I only think, you mean like when we took their children and cut their hair against their will. They had their stories, language as well as couture, even their religion, by similar extremists of the Christian faith who demand their and only their, rolly-polly book, and how it should be in school. You, need to remember this atheist, as it is the thing I think of when I hear some angered hate monger claims desires to make this a nation under their god. But yeaaa, religious freedom, I think…

Yeah, I am mad thank you very much.

People! Enough said, so I can still be kind.

Being kind in an unkind world to unkind people treating me unfairly is a true sign of my hights of bravery. May I be brave enough to reach for the glory of kindness.

Who gives a fuck?

Small abused hand rising to become a fist, I grab the mike. Well, me of course. I am brave enough to be kind. As all people of high honor do. How about you?

Empower the whole fucking world, PLEASE FUCKING PRETTY PLEASE. This is just a note for you to keep. It is now for you to give it away. I apologize for my disruption to your normal program, I will let you back monaurally, a message of the heart from your friendly neighborhood anarchist. Hi, I am Damien Marie AtHope:

“I think I may be a kindness-radical.”

“I love seeing long-oppressed people rise.”

This is like a theme song for my life: “Bloodywood – Machi Bhasad (Expect a Riot)”

Can we just skip to the part where I can vote for empowering the world?

Fucking when? My, people, are the kind. Be a good human.

I feel shame and America, you have done this to me. How fucking dare you be so unkind? I feel that when people deeply are connected to you emotionally that there is a deeper experience than just plain empathy or sympathy, etc., they may be experiencing vicarious trauma. Deep mental anguish.

I am, the mighty, Hammer of Truth, crashing DOWN!

I am always the one rejected and disrespected?

I love when philosophers, say to me, I have to read, XYZ, whoever, or you don’t understand it is very confusing so if you are struggling it is understandable, everyone does. I first think, speak for your self please, don’t tell me what I can’t do, especially if you have never even asked me. People simply see a big freak and write me the hell off. I never said philosophy was hard. Actually, it is to bring as it is just too easy if you really want to know. it is like children play to me and I am so sure about this I would challenge anyone on reason. So I am sure you can imagine how I feel. Inside I am rumbling, only to make me think, why, every time, do these philosophers, Muther-fuckers, invented. How could he not know I have invented several different normative as well as theoretical types of very sound philosophy of my own, DON’T you, fucking dare, talk down to me!

I am to know that I am not good enough, for you?

I see so many who only live to glorify or edify themselves, caring little who gets hurt along the way. Not me, I ponder long on how to solve every problem I see faced in the world. So in a way, you could rightly say of me that many things I strive for are to glorify or edify the world. I am just a person who thinks deep, may I be a good human above it all.

How dare you, shame the innocent?

I have never been mad at the simple fact of someone, with high wealth, opposite of how I never feel, not, outraged by the anguish of the poor. I am crying “Outloud” to the humanity of the world, to please be better.

You ask me, “What if you are wrong”

Here is info on how I would consider that: My own type of fallibilism

“Fallibilism applies that assessment even to science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved commonsense views. Some epistemologists have taken fallibilism to imply skepticism, though, it is fallibilist epistemologists (which is to say, the majority of epistemologists) who tend not to be skeptics about the existence of knowledge or justified belief. Generally, those fallibilist epistemologists see themselves as thinking about knowledge and justification in a comparatively realistic way — by recognizing the fallibilist realities of human cognitive capacities, even while accommodating those fallibilities within a theory that allows perpetually fallible people to have knowledge and justified beliefs. Epistemologists generally seek to understand knowledge and justification in a way that permits fallibilism to describe a benign truth about how we can gain knowledge and justified beliefs. The difference between fallibilism and skepticism lies in their beliefs about what constitutes knowledge. Fallibilists and skeptics both believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty. However, skeptics believe that we don’t know what we cannot confirm with 100% certainty, while fallibilists have a more moderate view where 100% certainty is not required for knowledge. When I state “fallibilists and skeptics both believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty.””, what I as a thinker using Fallibilism, believe that we can never establish the truth of a proposition with 100% certainty is referring to how it could be later found to be in error and may need adapting to the increase in epistemic accuracy tempered with Epistemic Humility. We are 100% certain all the time (certainty is a belief state), what most who doubt 100% certainty, likely are referring to is our ability to validate a kind of certainty or level of certainty as there is not one universal thinking on certainty with the two main types being psychological certainty or Epistemic Certainty. Certainty is connected to a belief state or level of sureness, so we can be 100% psychologically certain of things we state normatively. As in If I or you take a piece of text and know things about it as in is it written in a language legible to the general group of English only speakers to know it is written in English, as well as many other things with 100% logically certain belief. But I am open to new information to prove some thinking could be found in error in some way need updating to a more accurate view as a general epistemic persuasion.”
https://iep.utm.edu/fallibil/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

Rationalist, I am and I am will to power.

I am a rationalist, please respect me by never calling me a skeptic.

Rationalism and the Enlightenment

Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers

If I made the statement that the following proposition was 100% true and certain today and for all time that,

“There is a chance that Damien AtHope will either reply or not reply to his posts on FB”

I think people like to only talk as if there is one type of certainty as a universal true class. When I hold that there are different kinds of certainty such as first needing to know what type of certainty that I am referring, as in what is expressed in this statement:

“There is a chance that Damien AtHope will either reply or not reply to his posts on FB”

This is a kind of normative statement so to me normative thinking standards apply. As such, we can know that I proposed an “hedge one’s bets trying to keep from being wrong by saying you believe two contrary propositions at the same time which could be an unintentional oddity but just as likely is used as a form of intellectual dishonesty involving a rhetoric claim used as a red herring evasion.”

Moreover, with further understanding, we can also know that by accepting such an openness to all possibilities, what it is telling us, beyond its not making an open strong opinion on one side in its options, other than the thinking logically certain that accepting all possible outcomes of a being’s behavior is also maybe unwittingly confirming a stance to all, the possible presuppositions hidden in that, or that it seems “hedge one’s bets” possibly trying to avoid the possibility of making a claim that offers a thinking that is outside of challenge may not work that well unless you accept the belief in the reality of a world with free agents or even unthinking agents doing the choosing.

But believing in as well as epistemically certain about the reality of a world, is not doing anything that strange assuming a lot we all do all the time. But that’s the only thing we can do in a sense is unwittingly confirm a stance for the possible presuppositions hidden in much that we think or say as it seems we often express a belief in the reality of a world presupposition (which I believe we have extensive epistemic certainty, thus deserves 100% psychological certainty until shown otherwise.

Stop this foolishness Empiricism-Denier

No, you not only don’t have evidence of god, not one human alive has established, what is a god? when II ask them. Don’t get me wrong some try only to get mired in my world of reason, leaving al saying, well there is n answer but I believe anyway because I have faith. I know, I know, mister religious thinker, I think of you sadly as the faith drunk. Please don’t think like the faith drunk.

What do you mean by god Evidence?

Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods!

Sorry, You Have No Evidence?

Folk Logic: YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE because you can PROVE A NEGATIVE!

“Scientific knowledge,” to me?

Who am I, right? Take a look in me, I think you will be quite surprised!

To be scientific the knowledge must be:

*communicable: It is something which is discussed.

*general: generalized vs. separate fragments of knowledge

*conceptual: represented by concepts vs. intuitive ideas (i.e. explicit and propositional knowledge)

*true or provable argument: It can be proved or demonstrated.

The scientific methods should also fill some criteria, which try to guarantee the quality of scientific knowledge. (These are important and quite permanent part of the general paradigm of science):

*progressive: knowledge base is expanded by using this method

*self-correcting: the errors get corrected by this method

*publicity: arguments are public for anyone

*justifiable: the arguments are satisfactory as scientific

My Thoughts on Science vs. Faithism

Science, unlike faith, uses more Critically Open-Minded Reasoning (open assessment and reflective correctability) the effort to overcome all of those issues common with Induced Delusional Disorder or “faith brainwashed” thinking. With science, unlike faith thinking, all facts are welcomed, even if they contradict a treasured theory or model, which must then be rejected immediately.

A true scientist will be delighted at having found a new aspect of science, especially if it changes a scientific view, whereas a true religionist/fideist motivated by faith or Induced Delusional Disorder will deny it and try to explain it away. Admittedly science is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can or should reject or deny the truths it produces.

Religion too is not a single category, approach, or thinking, however, nobody who is reasonable and informed can accept its deluded or reality devoid beliefs, as any kind of truths. The scientific method assumes a priori of methodological naturalism about the nature of reality that is devoid of considering supernatural causes, it is not agnostic about this.

The scientific method is using a form of philosophical rationalism to establish this view about the nature of reality along with the commonly held philosophy of empiricism, because looking for proof or truth devoid of considering supernatural causes by using a priori assumptions is employing rationalism.

I Just Love Kind People.

I love it when kind people, help people, I don’t define it beyond that. I support kindness, I don’t ask if they have religion, and I don’t care if they do, I am appreciating the humanity. My people are the kind.

You don’t think you need, my invented philosophy?

Keep Your Ivory tower “Academic bias,” the bias of some philosophy scholars allowing the error of bias-philosophy of their beliefs, too often squandered on glorifying one’s wealth or ego. Do you remember how much he charged to share his philosophy? Nothing, right? Where did he do his philosophy, in college? of out in the streets?

If I remember correctly again, he only did it with the public. So, I too made my philosophy free for the public good. So, I don’t get where you can look down on me simply due to my not teaching in college. But in this, we now see your internal contradiction. You would have to devalue Socrates as well, right?

Or else what? You are going to have to change, how you see me. I am actually embarrassed for Socrates at how you too his anarchist gift, he wanted to glorify others not himself, which just like my he offered for free to empower the youth, remember, the reason they killed him? the trial claimed he corrupted the youth, funny as many think I do the same things as him.

And yet you think it is me who lacks a grasp of him, due to me never caring enough to read almost anything claiming to refer to him… My teacher was my empathetic wife’s kind behaviors. I have learned more in that kindness than any books or authors you are impressed by. All the rest is research on specific points but I truly do most right out of my own mind.

Marquis Amon “Those that write you off fail to demonstrate philosophy. You give them the opportunity to debate, to exchange ideas. Rejected and disrespected based on your appearance, it is their minds that are closed.”

Damien Marie AtHope “I didn’t make my philosophy for them (Academics) anyway. I made it for my friends, to empower them, so together we can change the world.”

Marquis Amon “That is why you make a difference, because you focus on helping people, namely those that need it. In my opinion, many academic philosophers will not debate some people because there isn’t any ‘prestige’ or fan fair. Whereas philosophy as you show, should be used by everyone.”

Some Academics Don’t like me, boohoo. lol

I didn’t make my philosophy for them, not Academics nor Capitalism. I offer it all for free to anyone. I made it for my friends, to empower them, so together we can change the world. Be a good Human.

I once was an Alcoholic and Crack Addict

Will to Power

Yes, I once was an alcoholic drug-addict, but now I am free.

I once was a smoker, until about 2004 and have not done it again and I have not taken any mind-altering chemicals through the rest of my life up to now.

(just a little while ago, like 2 years or something I started smoking weed as an alternative to pain killers. So even this to me doesn’t remove my sobriety as I am not the person I once was. I am the sturdy tower, I am will to power.)

I am the lion, hear me roar. But never forget My wife, Shayna Marie AtHope is the Lion Tamer. Just like lions, I too, love strong empowered women! One can not honor me without honoring my wife, I owe her everything, she is my home, my safety, and my friend.

To me, it seems like often improvement is a process not really a destination. Be kind to yourself and just enjoy your journey.

A True Anthem for the BRAVE

America we need you the ones that are counted among the kind, may I be as brave as they may we all hear freedoms call. May the soul of liberty rain again may we all be friends. All I have ever wanted was just one small thing, A KIND WORLD. Be a good human and remember, we rise by helping each other. Why can’t we all live as one?

Am I a friend of Kindness?

I am a love warrior and kindness is my only weapon, but I am happy to report that the fighting, though intense is bowing to our side of those who are kind, may we take over the world.

Anarchism, is not disorder, it is returning the right order. No matter how the want to arrange it freedom means something and we actually don’t have it and worse is the unreasoned or unethical implication why hidden as if forgotten in the pages of an old book.

But I am a friend of reason and I enjoy truth, so much, others may think of me, that secretly, truth is my seductress, my lover, and my friend. How I long for her embrace.

Damien Marie AtHope is creating Educational Writing, Art, Blogs, Video, Speaking, and Poetry at Patreon. I currently have 5 PATRONS $62 a month, help me out if you can. I appreciate all your love and support. I am ever proud as I have the best friends, who appreciate and love me.

Click here: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2728663

I am Goth Lion and I am an impossibility remover… Hear my kindness roar!

EMOTIONAL HIJACKING: THE TRIGGER TO AN UNHEALTHY MIND:

“Emotional hijacking is a sudden unleashing of rage towards another person. It is an extreme emotional outburst or an emotional explosion caused by an incident that may trigger anger or fear in an individual.” ref

“Such incidents happen many a time. There are a number of situations in which a person might get angry or upset and without even thinking about anything he/she might just lose his/her cool and simply explode with emotions and attack the other person verbally or even physically. For instance, an individual might suddenly get extremely angry and begin to shout at his/her friend and even slur him/her. In an extreme case, a disgusted husband might suddenly get upset and beat up his wife badly. In more extreme cases, a person might kill another person with an outburst of anger.” ref

“Wife beating and killing a person due to emotional hijacking can be rare, but incidents of individuals quarreling with each other and in the process damaging a relationship are quite common. Such moments do not last very long, but the time that it lasts does enough damage. Most of the times, a person regrets getting into such an act.” ref

Marquis Amon:

“Damien Marie AtHope, “You” are not, nothing, you are a dignity being equal to all other dignity beings. Your actions are focused to produce a positive result. Could that concept be so strange? That kindness is unusual in the world? That we need to work to create it!”

Damien Marie AtHope:

“Marquis Amon, That is if you don’t know a hidden dignity attack to the reader, making them motivated to kindness.” And, Marquis Amon, you too, are truly amazing, thank you, for being you. (((dignity enrichment)))

CEO Chill Brands LLC/CHILL POWDER MIXERS/Canndescent Partner/SENSI Adv Brd/Cannabis Pioneer 54 yrs/Influencer/Educator:

“Damien Marie AtHope. Facebook posts belong on Facebook. LinkedIn is a job sourcing website. Please respect those here to build business relationships. Thanks in advance for being polite.” – Advice-giver

My response, Thanks for your support. This is my job, I am an activist. (((dignity attack)))

Beat down, that Wicked thing!

You say I need a religion to be a good person, to which I find kind of odd. Do you not know my friend that it is kindness and it is freely available to everyone and if you ask me is something shared with the world. But who am I but one of those revolutionaries smashing through the mediocrity with the thunder of my Hammer of Truth! Beat down, that Wicked thing, EGO!

You will never be noticed by hiding, be you authentically, and in all things be kind.

Pamela McNeely Stairwalt:

“Damien Marie AtHope is a bluntly honest, misunderstood do-gooder without a hidden agenda.”

Are you brave enough to be kind?

Sometimes when I and my wife talk it is like two Lions fighting but don’t fret, this is just how two abused kids relate. We simply allow each other to authentically be, no strings but our deep love.

My Lion’s Power?

One of the most powerful but too hard for almost anyone is my style of becoming nothing transparent, see-through, and as if a ghost but I don’t believe in those silly things. How do I accomplish this feat of almost, magic?

I remove all EGO…, and operate as a decent human being as you can manage!

“Damien, do you meditate?” – Questioner

My response, Yes.

“Great, what school do you use to get the most relaxed and free from the stresses of the world?” – Questioner

My response, Napalm Death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCWcOTajUGk”

Old School Anarchist?

I am more of an old school anarchist, kind of, who from such a vantage point created his own new form of anarchism: “Anarcho-Humanism”

Anarcho-Humanism: Link
What Inspires My Anarcho-Humanism: Link
I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism: Link

Michael Lamb: “Damien, I am not an Anarchist. Politically, my atheism and my humanism has led me to European style Social Democracy. Good humans can disagree about the methods on achieving maximum good and union for Humanity. However, in terms of dismissing the illusions from Humanity’s Weltanschauung, I have stated this many times, my comrade. You are our Воин правды / Voin Pravdi / Warrior of Truth. Like me, you came from a background of abuse and darkness, to ascend to Enlightenment by your Reason alone. Huzzah! *Raises sword in salute*”

My style of fighting without fighting

Anti-fascists linked to zero murders in the US in 25 years

“As Trump rails against ‘far-left’ fascism, the new database shows leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists. Donald Trump has made warnings about the threat of antifa and “far-left fascism” a central part of his re-election campaign. But in reality, leftwing attacks have left far fewer people dead than violence by rightwing extremists, new research indicates, and antifa activists have not been linked to a single murder in decades. A new database of nearly 900 politically motivated attacks and plots in the United States since 1994 includes just one attack staged by an anti-fascist that led to fatalities. In that case, the single person killed was the perpetrator. Over the same time period, American white supremacists and other rightwing extremists have carried out attacks that left at least 329 victims dead, according to the database. More broadly, the database lists 21 victims killed in leftwing attacks since 2010, and 117 victims of rightwing attacks in that same period – nearly six times as much. Attacks inspired by the Islamic State and similar jihadist groups, in contrast, killed 95 people since 2010, slightly fewer than rightwing extremists, according to the data set. More than half of these victims died in a single attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016.” ref

I don’t think I am a furry, but I will tell you the idea is entertaining, as one who feels like the Goth Lion. I may be.

Fight for the good in the world which is the fight for good.

We are Trumpatized (at a point of Traumatized Safety)

Kickass for kindness!

Hi, as a rationalist, Reason is my full-time job. How about you?

Carl A Perry

“And business is booming ‘cause folks be asking questions now! We gotta do our part, some parts are small but very important to the overall “bigger picture!”

Damien Marie Athope

“Carl A Perry, You are indeed a very wise person. Hey, I am just lucky enough to have the privilege of calling you one of my longest or oldest friend, on Facebook. I know I said that odd so Ii will make it simpler. I respect what you do and who you are. You make us all proud. I still remember fondly talking to you about how I am mildly intersex and genderqueer and how I wish people would stop seeing me or at least thinking of me as just a man. and you were there for me. I felt alone you had like 4,000 or so friends I thought you were like a god. I had like 78 friends. I was amazed by you. then you treated me with such kindness I thought, now this is my people. I really appreciated how caring you were to me when I felt alone even from other LGBTQIA people. Much love.”

Carl A Perry

“Damien Marie Athope – I often think back on the days when we talked, cried, and shared so many things and love! It was my pleasure! I’m glad to see how you have reached out to others that were once isolated and scorned. I’m sure, you have made an impact on their lives too! Please, keep doing you! The world is a much better place. Thanks so very much for those encouraging words! Peace or Raise Hell- big hugs!”

If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

Above everything remain teachable… Be open to change…

Watch out, I am a far-leftist radical, you know the spooky lefty monster I keep hearing about from Trump.

Rise to the greatness of kindness. Dont be brought down by the evilness of hate!

We rise by helping each other…

Stupid Radicals?

A radical I be, to you, do you know what that word means?

“Radical: of or relating to the origin: FUNDAMENTAL

2a: very different from the usual or traditional: EXTREME

b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions

c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme changed: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs the radical right.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical

Sometimes we just do what is right even if it is hard but being kind in this way is a gift to your own humanity.

Normalize people being nice to you without assuming they wanna sex. I strive to be nice to everyone but out of humanity, not sex seeking. I am not claiming to not have sex needs but it is not why I do kindness. I think people of high character should express humanity as freely as others seem to champion hate.

I have Compassion, not Patience as an Atheist Activist. When challenging other on most things can induce aggressive feelings, thinking, words or behaviors thus failing at the excellence of thoughtfulness, openness, and compassion When we see people that have been indoctrinated as a child to believe it requires in, to me, for us nonbeliever atheist to require compassion for those we see as being blinded by forces in the mind of their past, that informed them in what to think or believe and they are hindered from reanalyzing the reason of what should or should not be believed.

I know I hold deep compassion for them, as I was them a theist until 35 years old in college, then realized the conclusion of atheism. Before that, I had started school to become a Christian counselor for alcohol and drug addiction, and during that learning, mainly I realized the truth of atheism.

Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well.

A Different Kind of Atheist: Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’ Axiological “Presumptive-Value Failure”

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

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

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

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

“Axiology and Value Theory?”

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

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

Discussing Beliefs, Bias, History, and Humanism: Video

M.D. Psychiatrist, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist (Ph.D.), Social and Cultural Anthropologist in a private message on LinkedIn:

“I appreciate All your activism. Sorry to hear about your mum. My sympathy for your grief. I know you are a poet and great poets give silence a chance for speaking. So, do have a pleasant day, Damien! I am not that active member, but I usually try to share what I find useful. Every article of yours (especially the ones related to archaeology, mankind history and religious thinking) is highly appreciated. Same about your most intimate, self-disclosing posts and your art (BTW the recent painting you posted from your 20’s with the rose is really impressive!). I usually do not post so much because of my patients/clients, I prefer the most to have a low profile of mine here on LinkedIn. Neither about politics, even if some important politicians nowadays really suck!! Do have a pleasant day/night/whatever – now it’s afternoon here in Rome.” – Academic

My response, I appreciate your support and friendship. Have a great day as well.Yes, her loss it hitting me hard. But I have been feeling better talking out my feelings. Like in this blog:

“Mental Revolution, in one Blog Post?” https://www.patreon.com/posts/40735719

“My deepest condolences, Damien.” – Academic

My response, Did you get a chance to read that latest blog post (Mental Revolution, in one Blog Post?)??? Where I talked about my mom dying. Thanks. Let me know what you think. I appreciate your support and acknowledgement. I appreciate also all your efforts to help bring positive change. It is long but amazing I hold nothing back it is the rawest post I have made, you truly get to see how I think and how I was raised as well as my efforts to change the world to make it kinder. It is the best post I have ever put together. If you read the entire thing most things about me will make more sense. This blog post is so epic it is like mental dynamite… It drips fire, be careful. lol

“That is so kind of you. You are a sensitive, compassionate person. I will surely give you my humble feedback about your article ASAP – in a couple of days, I hope. I will handle it with the great care it deserves. No joking. Unfortunately these days of mine are very busy, otherwise I would have give you my (humble) opinion sooner.” – Academic

My response, I see what you do, it is all needed. I know I need to be out and in people’s faces as others can’t. I understand many academics can’t be as open as me. I have an strong atheist friend who is an anthropology/archaeology professor in Los Angeles and we had done a col video talking on atheism and archaeology but he took real shit for it and told me to take it down.

But I removed his face and name and sneaked it in the second half of this video: LINK

States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights.

At times I have to step back and think after I go “whoa.”

I do that daily. I try to stay in wonderment like a child. Full of joy even if only to play with other people’s trash. I actually dug in trash cans as a child. I got all my porn that way. You have not lived as a youth on a porn hunt to see the glory that is the dumpster behind the military barracks housing that I could walk to as a youth.

Marquis Amon

“To me, kindness is an expression of humanity. Not simply being human, I think kindness is a branch of the philosophy of humanity. We are human, but kindness makes us humane. Emotions can give us great insight, but we must not only feel them, but understand them. The experience is wordly, our passions not only affect ourselves, but others. We must learn to master ourselves, our own emotions to create beautiful thinking that can lead to creating such loveliness in the world. To be thoughtful, kind, and compassionate within a cruel world is heroic. We put others before ourselves, we expose ourselves, our vulnerabilities to others, for a helping hand is not one in defense. Almost all of us have experienced cruelty, that such negativity can reduce our humanity(dehumanize), yet for some reason thinking errors(such as negative reinforcement) have many think it could produce a positive result. You prove that one can rise above our negative experiences, but it should make no sense that unkindness should be a methodology within humanity.”

Marquis Amon

“Damien, when you said that it took you until college courses in biology to really put together the fact that the ideas in religion are bullshit is one of many reasons why I argue for higher education. Clearly highschool leaves things lacking for some students. That at least in other countries higher education is seen as necessary for the advancement of society. A lack of money should never deprive anyone of the ability to learn. I see education as a human right. I apologize if my opening statement seemed like a dignity attack. I meant it as not such. Rather stating that understanding science may occur at a higher level than what is offered in our current educational system.”

Damien Marie Athope

It was, learning biology, science in general, really. As well as other things before I stopped belief though it is true that the biology issues got me to start thinking but my atheism is more related to my two college classes on religion one on the worlds religions and especially the class of the bible as it was only halfway through that class I realized this is all bullshit. You are fine no need to apologize, I am cool. I was Christian for 35 years, read the bible twice, and took two religious classes before realizing the conclusion of atheism. I was Christian for 35 years, read the bible twice, and took two religious classes before realizing the conclusion of atheism. Atheism for me was a life freeing revelation as it was only after 35 that I became an atheist. Thus it was indeed a new awakening to self-mastery after a life of mental slavery to religion and the terroristic god damning me at birth in an original sin mindset. I was raised in non-denominational evangelical/pentecostal Christian. I was such until I was about 35 years old (2006), I never even doubted god and never had an atheist friend I knew of nor did I even want to know anything about atheism. How I changed was in college learning science and most of all taking a competitive religion class learning things about other religions I had never even cared to ask just beloved they where all wrong only Christian was right. Then I finally stopped believing in all or any religion, with my class on understanding the bible. Halfway through that class, I stop all belief in god, and though did not know it nor even understand the word I had become an atheist. I have been working hard at becoming informed since then.

Yes, I was an undoubting Christian until the age of 35 years old, while in my second religious studies classes and so you know I have read the entire bible twice before I ever took the two college classes on religion and the bible before realizing I was an atheist; I was a very superstitious supernaturalist as well as a strong theist not even once did I think to doubt or even question. I am sad to say I was not much of a rationalist now that is my driving force. Now, I question everything and think through almost everything.

*One was a class on the top world religions using the book (Living Religions: A Brief Introduction) http://books.google.com/books/about/Living_Religions.html?id=ITnlAAAAMAAJ

*The other class on the bible using the book (Understanding The Bible) http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Bible-Stephen-Harris-ebook/dp/B005HXN098/ref=sr_1_16?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1428899981&sr=1-16

And as for your comment, I don’t think of you doing dignity attacks to me. They likely would not work well on me anyway. lol

Marquis Amon

“Damien, you would agree with me that a college education may be useful or needed for the purpose of acquiring sufficient knowledge and critical thinking skills to reach atheism from a position similar to yours? I am not belittling your efforts, they are needed, invaluable. Access to college to me is vital in fighting religion. For example, many religions deprive women of education, for example. I want to make sure that happens to no one ever again.”

Damien Marie Athope

Turning Atheist? In the middle of the class on the bible the things I learned assisted me in turning atheist. I was asked by a Christian, “for those 35 Christian years what Christian denomination did you belong to?” Well, I was raised in the local church the teachings of Witness Lee / Living Stream movement: http://assemblylife.com until around 13. Then I was in Eagle’s Nest Ministries Gary Greenwald http://eaglesnestministries.org/ then other Christian churches. Mostly non-denominational. I was then asked, “would you say that your faith was shaky from the start? Or, were you well grounded in your faith through the scriptures and later on engaged in research that led to you leave Christianity altogether?” I was a devout believer not always a great follower but I totally believed until learning facts in college especially on the devil.

Marquis Amon

“Damien, I attempted to use the link and it informed me that the site was suspended? Is that in error?”

Damien Marie Athope

First, I totally agree. I would be rich and famous if I had a good fair start in life. How many poor abused little Damien’s are right now, that we have dismissed as not of high value as they are made to suffer and have little hopes of going anywhere successful? I see it, the site claims it is working on it. It was good years ago. It’s not like I keep up on it. lol

Marquis Amon

“Patience and understanding are the pebbles that build to the road to wisdom. You need not respect religion. It is an idea, a bad one at that. It would be like respecting slavery. No, you don’t respect that, either, nor should you. Religion has no value, it is unscientific. So there is no empirical need for it. It also divides humanity. We need no ideas that separate us from other humans on the vital level of our dignity.”

People seem to often ask what books I read on religion that aided in my understanding of the evolution of religion. Here are just 4. I have many more. Someone was interested in some of the books I have read well here are some but not all of the books I bought but its several to give you the idea. I am not really an easy reader. I now mainly read-only college-level books on history, anthropology, archaeology, psychology, axiology, philosophy, and the like if it relates to religion, many are up to or over $100.00 some are as low as around $30.00 but I once paid over I think almost $200.00.

All I want for my birthday is a kinder world. May I be a good human! We rise by helping each other. Are you a friend of kindness? May we all live as one, reasoned flourishing human race! We are the athours of our future and what you do now may shape the rest of your life so wright a good story. Write an epic with you as the peoples champion, go make this real!

Brett Minard

“Damien, may your birthday wish come true, if not today, then in the near future. I for one will work to make it come true.”

Why is your Atheism so strong against god it is almost Arrogant, Damien?

I know enough to surprise archaeologists but they don’t realize I have been researching since 2006 when I became an atheist. I wanted to know. I am also going t publish my book that will shock the world at how much I have figured out. it is breathtakingly amazing.

Even though I use the word bless, the word bless to me is incoherent or real meaning its like a prayer its just talking about thought or word magic as if that is real, which it is not. This is a hijacking and rewording of “god bless you” it is meant to both show human values matter and to sarcastically make a jab that with human values no god is needed even if one was real.

Damien, Friend to the World?

I want to be a friend to the world. I wish you all well. Please be good to one another, we are all we have got! No one is coming to save us! We thus must help! We can either rise as one human family or we are likely to just end up killing more of one another, when will this sad history end? Whatever happened to friends?

Children just need safety and love… Are YOU a safe loving person?

As a caring out firebrand-atheist, I don’t wish theists any harm, no, rather they are the very people I am trying to help the most.

We rise by helping each other.

Falling Tears, like Water?

The worse is not even so much my mom’s death, it’s reliving my childhood abuse memories. I talk about it in that blog “Mental Revolution.” I am real as shit in this blog post. I actually was doing shitty inside, even feeling as if I was drowning and powerless. It all was just too much. I wanted the world to hear me and I wanted to use that real genuine expression as a teaching tool to help inspire positive change in those who read it. Doing this made me start feeling ok. Not good at all in the happy feeling but good that I was making a true difference.

We rise by helping each other.

You, are counted among the brave? Are you kind in an unkind world?

It is truly sad, we are all not working for positive change… Be on the side of good. Will you be the change needed in the world? Can we not be better? Do we have the bravery to be kind in an unkind world? Well, I for one sure as hell do. Why did you ask? Because someone has to care or we are all doomed… My people are the ones with that rare courage of humanity, you know the ones so full of love and kindness that just them being alive champions the humanity of us all. May I be so brave and stand with those fighting for what is right, true, and good… Kindness is my friend!

Bad little ME?

S.E.L.F. (Secondary, Educational, Learning, Facility) Highschool for kids removed from regular students, rather we at SELF were the bad problem children. I was kicked out of school for excessive fighting and general antisocial behaviors. The last straw was fighting another student. His head was bleeding from me bashing his head rapidly against a chain-link fence. And I was not done. As I sat in the principles office after him asking e if it was over? I said no, I was to hurt him more for thinking he could disrespect me by challenging me to fight, in front, of my friends, which I was talking to, interrupting us. I ran from the room in the principal’s office when I saw then bring the kid out to his father. I cold-cocked him in the face as his father and the principal talked, dropping him to the ground. I am not sure of what else, because as I stood toe to toe with his dad asking if he too wanted some from me, When I was nocked to the group by the principal. And I was enrolled in S.E.L.F. High School the next day, and it is where I did graduate. If I can change, so can anyone willing.

Marquis Amon – “And despite that, you became a good person. Congratulations on graduating…30 years ago or not. I still believe that we need to change our approach to dealing with troubled youth.”

Damien Marie Athope – Yes, I only graduated but it was close, with extra everything just to be an hour late but still allowed to make it. We do as it was a woman using feminist therapy and nonaggression as well as offered me undeserved kindness, and I stop, and thought, wait, what is this, why? I thought what is going on and why is she still being kind to me, I have been terrible, and yet she still acted careing? I calmed down and became willing due to nothing more than genuine human kindness offered without strings attached. I then realized kindness was one of the most important things in the world, and that realization has transformed my life and now I champion kindness to the world as I deeply understand it amazing power…

Marquis Amon – “That woman realized that in order to help someone, you need to reach out to them. You were late, most would have turned you away, simply for that. Closing such a door closes the opportunity to help them as well. That’s just one aspect of the modern issue we face with society. Another is using negative action to produce a positive result. I.E. spanking. The very idea should be seen as bad thinking. Speaking of thinking, her actions caused you to think positively, and deeply.”

Damien Marie Athope – Marquis Amon, I appreciate all your thoughtful responses.

Marquis Amon – “I strive to give you such, my friend. To generate discussion. Other times, to add perspective. some times it helps in understanding. Other times, people will be willing to engage if others do. Kindness, a wonderful idea that is more so when done.”

Pro Non-Aggression?

I am an Atheist Anarchist for Non-Aggression (not passivism)

The non-aggression of which I speak is: Anti-sexual Violence, Anti-Spanking, Anti-Circumcision, Anti-Bullying, Anti-Violence, Anti-child maltreatment, Anti-animal cruelty, Anti-Domestic Violence, and Anti-Verbal Violence (Threats, Character Assassination, Intimidation), Pro-Ethics, Pro-Body Sovereignty, Pro-Empathy and Equality.

For those who think attacking religion is some kind of Character Assassination because its people that are religious. You are confused because character assassination is attacking people with abusive name-calling not confronting religion dishonesty. Character Assassination is not being justifiably mentally aggressive as in one challenging, holy figures, gods, religions, myths, superstitions, beliefs, or deluded or misinformed ideas. Character Assassination is not meaning strong stances, aggressive challenge in rational arguments, or pitilessly exposing injustice, harm or oppression. It is our passion and an honored chosen duty to promote Non-Aggression and speak the truth of atheism and ethical behavior so people don’t stay misinform abused or oppressed.

The non-aggression of which I speak values anti-violence unless the violence is for direct self-defense or other-defense.

A Light in the Dark?

A dark room is only scary until you turn on the light. So when we let our dark thoughts out in the light, we may see there is not so much reason to fear them as when we kept them hidden. However, there may be some rooms which are even scarier when you turn on the light and see the full problem you face. Somethings you fight against, somethings you fight for, somethings you fight to be, and somethings you need to stop fighting. But I am nothing, I am no one, I am just a light in the dark trying to help you shine…

A lone Lion, protecting all He can???

I am just me. I have not group or organization helping me in any way, nor have they ever done so. I have done it all myself but I do, what I do for the good and empowerment of others. But I am no one, I am nothing, I am just a light in the dark trying my best to shine brightly for the world to help all I can as much as I can before I am gone. How soon that end time feels now!

Change The World

I want to change the world leave it a better place than I found it as others do, the great thing is to me we all do because a movement is not a single person. So may look at their contribution and be disheartened believing what they do will not really matter and will never change the world. To this, I disagree by doing what you can you have already made a change if in no one else but you. You have changed a person and the world is on its way to change with that one person thinking and acting differently affecting the world around them. To me, it is in our willful intentionally to make a positive difference we do. The world is people, we influence people all the time whether big or small movements begin and bring change by the voices of many all positive momentum is an active connected part. We may not be the ones to do it all but to see it grow to fruition takes many needed parts.

Be a Good Human?

I don’t value intelligence above kindness because how smart can you be if kindness is something you are not wise enough to grasp the dep value kindness holds or how much its addition can change lives. I personally had my life changed by an undeserved act of kindness. I will forever champion this gift of kindness. My people are those who are kind. I don’t want to be better than any, I want better together. I want a kind world for all. I am 100% pro-humanity! We rise by helping each other. Be a good human.

You, me, everyone is a needed part of the solution!

When people say they don’t like me, I always think, I guess you haven’t read enough of my writing then…

It is too loud, YOUR Lion’s Roar?

I will not curtail myself, for the fragile egos of others. But, I am understanding and tend to even respect, those striving to change.

Beyond your HATE!

I have a multi-ethnic diverse family and friends as well, so anyone. who attacks minorities, they attack my family and best friends. And guess what, I take that shit personally!

Fight Fascism

I feel it a moral obligation to keep or vote fascists out of any and all governments. So yes I will vote Biden as I am just voting against that which must go. I will still demand human rights and liberties no matter who gets voted in so believe me I will still keep fighting for what is right… I am an anti-fascist. Antifa, I am with you, support our troops!

May we all help fight fascism.

Like me, He was an anarchist, which he stated himself and Charlie Chaplin was a Socialist?

He, like me, was a social anarchist, “Social anarchism is the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom.” ref

“Social anarchism is the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as interrelated with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought emphasizes community and social equality as complementary to autonomy and personal freedom. It attempts to accomplish this balance through freedom of speech, which is maintained in a decentralized federalism, with freedom of interaction in thought and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is best defined as “that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry” and that “[f]or every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”, or the slogan “Do not take tools out of people’s hands.” ref

“Social anarchism has been the dominant form of anarchism.” ref

“Charlie Chaplin has been accused widely in USA for being a Socialist / Communist, but, in his own words, he denied being a communist and claimed to be a “Peace Monger.” Below is an account of Chaplin’s activities that earned him the accusations.” ref

Charlie Chaplin’s Socialism?

“Even during the World War, Chaplin had supported various Soviet-American friendship groups and had attended a number of functions hosted by Soviet Diplomats in Los Angeles.
J. Edge Hoover of the FBI was suspicious of Charlie’s political inclination during the mid 1940’s, and he exploited the Barry Scandal that tarnished Chaplin’s reputation.
The major blow came with the making of the comedy film Monsieur Verdoux in April 1946. The film revolved around a poor bank clerk marrying rich widows and subsequently murdering them to get wealthy. In the end, the clerk gets caught and confesses while denouncing the capitalism in the world which allowed social injustice and cause wars to be waged, killing millions. He also voiced his concerns against Weapons of Mass destruction.
The film was criticized in USA on its release in April 1947, but it was nominated for an Academy Award due to its success in Europe.
Official investigation into Chaplin’s activities was launched in early 1947.
In June 1947, there were talks of his deportation from the USA.
Chaplin, along with his family, left for London on the 18th of September 1952, because he felt that the US government was restricting his liberty.
Interestingly, as per the documents made public in 1980s, the US Government did not have any concrete evidence to term Chaplin’s activities as illegitimate or Socialist.” ref

“Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin KBE (16 April 1889 – 25 December 1977) was an English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame in the era of silent film. He became a worldwide icon through his screen persona, “The Tramp“, and is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry. His career spanned more than 75 years, from childhood in the Victorian era until a year before his death in 1977, and encompassed both adulation and controversy.” ref

“Chaplin’s childhood in London was one of poverty and hardship, as his father was absent and his mother struggled financially, and he was sent to a workhouse twice before the age of nine. When he was 14, his mother was committed to a mental asylum. Chaplin began performing at an early age, touring music halls and later working as a stage actor and comedian. At 19, he was signed to the prestigious Fred Karno company, which took him to America. He was scouted for the film industry and began appearing in 1914 for Keystone Studios. He soon developed the Tramp persona and formed a large fan base. He directed his own films and continued to hone his craft as he moved to the Essanay, Mutual, and First National corporations. By 1918, he was one of the best-known figures in the world.” ref

“In 1919, Chaplin co-founded the distribution company United Artists, which gave him complete control over his films. His first feature-length film was The Kid (1921), followed by A Woman of Paris (1923), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928). He initially refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead of producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue. He became increasingly political, and his first sound film was The Great Dictator (1940), which satirized Adolf Hitler. The 1940s were a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly. He was accused of communist sympathies, and some members of the press and public found his involvement in a paternity suit, and marriages to much younger women, scandalous. An FBI investigation was opened, and Chaplin was forced to leave the United States and settle in Switzerland. He abandoned the Tramp in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess from Hong Kong (1967).” ref

“Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films. He was a perfectionist, and his financial independence enabled him to spend years on the development and production of a picture. His films are characterized by slapstick combined with pathos, typified in the Tramp’s struggles against adversity. Many contain social and political themes, as well as autobiographical elements. He received an Honorary Academy Award for “the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century” in 1972, as part of a renewed appreciation for his work. He continues to be held in high regard, with The Gold Rush, City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator often ranked on lists of the greatest films of all time.” ref

All the scum Trumpist cult members are toxic to humanity, and must be completely rejected…

I see all crime as a mental health issue and it should thoughtfully be treated as such. If not, then I would check to ensure they don’t lack basic needs as most people in safety and fully supplied in their basic needs as well as human rights, desires crime if they can do otherwise. We need to help, not further hurt others to help humanity.

elcome to My world of Reason?

One reason my style is different?

I am a Rationalist Atheist and what others may not realize because of this I mainly use and try to inspire Reason not Doubt as I feel is more common with Skeptic style Atheism. It seems to me they hold a big value in the power of doubt but I don’t see doubt, as that useful as it doesn’t establish truth. I want to show others by bringing them into my world of reason, that reason is the only master. And that they didn’t use reason for their beliefs. I let reason do the rest. I can even change minds and never even address doubt with my style.

The Unifying theme of Unreliability?

You know one common problem several major religions have? They were not written by the person they claim to represent the main figure. The Torah, was not written by Moses. The claimed sacred texts of Buddhism were not written by Buddha (also known as Siddhārtha Gautama). And of course, not even one written word was put in the Christian Bible authored by Jesus, let me make this fully clear for the students in the back, not any part of the bible was written by Jesus, think long and hard on this. Jesus came according to most Christians it seems, to save the world, and create a new religion “Christianity”, one would assume as well, but then why did he not just simply write the books himself? Oh, let’s not forget the late bloomer, the Koran not written by Muhammad, not even one word. Nor did he say to write a Koran either, strange, right? But the shit show must go on, I guess. Neither was the Taoism or Daoism “Tao Te Ching” written by Lao-Tzu, so you see the theme I see, right?

Do you see the problem now??? I can’t believe, you believe! Lol

Why, do all you can?

I am trying to use every aspect of my life to help the world. I want all the positive changes as possible. I ultimately just want a kind world where we all can live in as one humanity. I am trying to get people to realize, the wisest thing I have ever done, was to be kind as a way of life. I always think, of any mean people, how smart can they be, if they are not wise enough to see the beauty of kindness? The world needs more Truly honest thinkers, hopefully, people just like you – that are above all things, deeply intellectually-honest, as it is these deep thinkers and philosophers that want to help people who aid us all in changes. Please, don’t stop, if that is you!

“You atheists just don’t get, god (your god-something claim) is mysterious.”

Well, well, is that not just special, class, lets all marvel at this absurdity in reasoning, I mean seriously… Would you hire someone who works in mysterious ways? Or say you trust in mysterious ways to navigate morality? Or feel just claiming to know anything if your fall back, answer is, to always assume faith without evidence or just blindly assume someone who works in mysterious ways? You should let facts lead your beliefs, not let your beliefs lead how you see facts. What even is a god anyway? I hear people say a creator, but that is an attributed behavior, of a thing, not the thing in question, and I always ask, “what is a god?”, not what you think a god-something did in your beliefs. G.O.D. Group Originated Delusion, thus a fixed unreality belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

Intellectual honesty: https://lnkd.in/gnr7PyF

Intellectual dishonesty: https://lnkd.in/gjJAtRu

Michael Lamb – “Epicurus summed that up in antiquity.”

My response, Yes, more axiological atheism thnking. Most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues, can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition, they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value).

Marquis Amon – “Having omnipotence and omniscience can be considered possible. Yet the argument of evil in terms of morality requires that the person use those things in reality. Therefore the presence of evil proves the nonexistence of god because regardless of being omnipotent and omniscient that the person fails on the grounds of morality. In other words, it is a paradox, you can’t be omnipotent, omniscient, and moral while evil exists in the world. The paradox is that omniscience requires morality. Mr. Lamb is correct on what he stated on this point as well, I just wanted to explain what the paradox really is and why it is such. I also wanted to add that there is often a logical fallacy used by theists that claims that the allowance of evil’s presence is somehow morally justified, by unspecified(nonexistent, divine reason). Evil is fundamentally immoral and therefore disproves god.”

Alone?

I suffer from the need to treat everyone as the valuable fellow, dignity beings, that are just like me. The next realization was that I must help change the world. I didn’t think I was the right person for the job. But hell, after experiencing the world, and it’s celebration of unkindness, I get why kind people may feel a need to remove themselves. I want to live in a kind.

Perfect, made by Practice?

I love highlighting that anything others think I may do good is a skill, I only learned by years of practice. And, practice, should be seen as a great thing because it is often, the very thing that makes us become great. So, go do more practice, because your greatness may just depend on it…

Marquis Amon – “Practice does depend on our greatness, we are continuously evolving, as individuals and as a species. That over the course of a few hundred thousand years, or perhaps two million, depending on modern or archaic human, we have learned and mastered many great skills that have got us to wear we are now. Then think back of our societies a few hundred years ago…we made a lot of progress socially, too. How, we made continuous efforts to refine ourselves, our ideas, and their execution. Why? It occurs to us, usually through science that we can improve things.”

Just a Dignity-Being?

I know, I know, I am the crazy anarchist because I stubbornly hold steadfast to the thinking that every human life across this globe (to remind flat earthers) are of the same value, fellow dignity-beings, just like me. What example will your behavior, tell the world? I am nothing, I am no one, I am just a light in the dark, asking you to think, with the eyes of your humanity??? What will they say of me?

Why do I have to be alone???

I am sadly, starting to think, if I want a kind world, I may have to keep people at a small minimum and instead, surround myself with animals, not people. And this is because people seem to be addicted to unkindness and I dislike being around unkind people. My kind of people are ones who are kind. I love intellectual honesty people and deep-thinking people. I personally think that we all socially hold a responsibility to be reasoned and intellectually honest. I have been trying to inspire that as well as the need to have kind behaviors but I am one, just one little light in the dark.

(((I liked this quote but not the art. So, I changed it, with a little of my style of art)))

Courtney Lawrence “Archaeologist” –

“We also have to remember everyone shows support a little differently. Additionally, people can be kind of horrible at showing that

they care. It doesn’t mean that they don’t care. Rather, usually they are so busy dealing with so many other things in their lives. We

are all constantly juggling (metaphorically), and this pandemic adds further stress to everyone.”

Where did we come from? Do humans have value? Etc. Etc. Etc. Theist thinking he is superior to atheists in a debate group???

My response, Have you asked yourself those questions? Intellectually honest people would. And they would not start with any limitations on reason to guide them. So again, were you an honest thinker when, you say you ask yourself first?

“Damien, I have asked myself these questions and I’ve answered them. I’m being intellectually honest, and I am simply asking what “your” answers to these questions are.” – Theist Poster

My response, Ok, if so, what was your favorite answer and what was the valid reasoning used to reach your chosen conclusion? Please, explain fully. Thanks.

“Damien, why are you just asking me what I’m asking you? I’m wanting to know your answers.” – Theist Poster

My response, Interesting question as you did that very thing did you not? I am waiting on your response? I am looking for your intellectual honesty in your account of how you reached your chosen answers. If you fully and honestly answer than so will I.

“Damien, why are you just asking me what I’m asking you? I’m wanting to know your answers.” – Theist Poster

“I already, answered you, sir.” – Theist Poster

My response, Good, then you will answer my questions? No, you will not, but we must ask why??? Can you imagine the level of intellectual dishonesty of a Theist Poster asking atheists questions as if only an atheist has any objections to answer??? I don’t respect such people, do you??? You agree that we have a morality duty, to be honest thinkers intellectually, right?

“Damien, I’m not sure where the disconnect is, but I’ll say again: I asked the question. You don’t have to answer, but you shot my question back at me. It sounds like you want to hear not just what my answers are, but how and why I concluded those answers logically and philosophically. There is nothing wrong with your question, but I’m not trying to argue the logical and philosophical route I took to conclude what I did. I’m not asking anyone to prove why they chose the answer they chose.The reason I’m asking these four question is because I’m interested in what others think because I believe everyone has to face them. I simply want to know what others think. You already know what you think and I already know what I think. I’m not interested in debating the answers. I’m just asking for yours. You don’t have to answer.” – Theist Poster

My response, You have never given me a good full answer to my honest question. You are evading answering. Thus this very behavior is labeled as lacking in intellectual honesty. It could be raised to intellectual dishonesty. As if you are added over and over again, it stopped being an accident and became purposed. Thus you then have been intellectually dishonest in this point I am addressing. If you don’t want to be seen as such, the best way is to honesty answer. If again you willfully reject this intellectual morality duty, what should we think of you? So please answer me? Thanks.

“No, Damien. You can call me what you want, but just be careful you don’t become a hypocrite. You haven’t answered me either, and it seems like you want to hold me to a standard you won’t hold yourself to. I don’t even know you.” – Theist Poster

My response, I don’t want to call you anything, I just want, an honest thinker, answer. That is it. I am an honest thinker above everything. And I was wondering if you were???

My response, “We have a moral duty, to be honest. 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. Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs. Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including: Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty to be “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception”. Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

“Trump supporter warns MSNBC he will ‘take up arms’ if Biden wins: ‘If that’s what it comes to.” – LinkedIn Post

My response, on a LinkedIn post, Such people are Un-American and totally Anti-democracy! Phonies, claiming to be American patriots. What a fucking joke, go read a book on American history, so your ignorance can stop, some time!!! I have AntiFa friends, armed and ready, to keep your hate in check!

“Damien AtHope ” – Challenger

My response, Is that a line of Trump supporters? Asking for a friend. Lol

“Damien AtHope, No. You too ugly, my friend.” – Challenger

My response, I did not know you were looking for a date? Good luck, with that, bro.

“Damien AtHope but you got nice mouth boy.” – Challenger

My response, Thanks, I am totally cool with you having homosexual feelings but I am not into it, like you. I still hope you find love, though.

“Damien AtHope but come on boy, you anarchist, you can handle a good fukin.” – Challenger

My response, We anarchist respect the dignity of others, so, I don’t act in unhonorable ways. What good behavior standards do you support?

“You don’t even have respect for yourself. You have no idea what you kids Are even what rebelling about.” – Challenger

My response, So no behavior standards for you? I hope you respect your honor better than that, right? I mean do you feel you are, a good, person? If so do you think good people act a certain way? Like acting in a way, you know, that we know they are good by the example the behavior inspires??? Can we judge you, by your behavior here, it is an example for all good people to follow?

“Damien AtHope, HEY, anarchist, you ever been outside of USA???” – Challenger

My response, So you evade an honest question of your behavior to show me, what that you don’t value your self nor respect others? Are you an honest thinker? How would I know by your behavior? So what are your behavior standards?

“Damien AtHope, I don’t follow any group.just me myself & You believe in socialism???” – Challenger

My response, So you don’t care about the human rights or dignity of others, I am just trying to follow as you are not giving a direct answer to a direct question, almost if your shamefulness is even apparent to you, am I right? Do you have any honor? If so what behavior of yours has exemplified this attribute, as I don’t see any honor in your behavior yet, is it coming soon? I hope you choose to be a person of honor and respect the dignity and human rights of others. Can we not agree on this?

Marquis Amon – “That is the essence of the two-party system, it is really about allowing evil because one is part of a party. That the end justifies the means. That there isn’t an real objectivity and accountability in our system.”

Marquis Amon – “It is about understanding that demanding respect and giving orders doesn’t net any gain, rather understanding and demonstrating character gives children reason to respect you, reason to listen, because you show them what you mean.”

Marquis Amon – “In other words truth is something that not only possesses evidence, but quality evidence that gives a more definitive position. For example, several sources of science support evolution. Biology and genetics, for example. When you can confirm things with more than one methodology it further supports justification and likelihood of it being true, this also lends to certainty.”

Marquis Amon – “Faith says something is true because they believe it to be true. Suppose there is a literal box, one that is closed. Never examined. Suppose people think of all the potential wonderful things they believe are in the box…yet the never open the box. None the less continue to think wonderful things are inside it, that’s faith. Faith confirms nothing. Nor does it possess logic, reason, or evidence. You just believe.”

Michael Lamb – “Faith is nothing. It is like driving without eyes…”

Marquis Amon – “Yes, let’s give blind people driver’s licenses and hope they don’t hit anything. If that doesn’t make sense, then my statement means we have to have faith they don’t.”

Unrealized Presumptive-value?

Yes, you hold a lot of unrealized Presumptive-value, in almost everything?

Well, to me, as an Axiological (philosophic “value-theory”) theorist, most things around morality/ethics/moral reasoning issues can be thought to relate to an axiological assumption (some Presumptive-value) or presupposition they don’t realize they are assuming (some Presumptive-value).

Here is my blog post explaining this further:

Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality

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:

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

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

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

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

Turning a Theist Attack into a Chance for Their New Learning: “an open dialog”

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?

Attacking the Person?

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.

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally.

Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people.

When I was young it was all about me, I wanted to be liked.
Then I got older and it was even more about me, I wanted power. Now I am beyond a toxic ego and it is not just about me, I want to make a difference.

Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well-tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism.

Here are four blogs on that: Activism Labels Matter, thus Feminism is Needed, Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?, Sexism in the Major World Religions and Rape, Sexism, and Religion?

Having privilege in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. does not mean one did not have it hard in life, it just was not hard due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. if one has privilege in that area.

“Ideas don’t deserve respect. In fact, they deserve the opposite: Examination, scrutiny, ridicule, dissection, taunting, testing, testing, testing. Until only the ideas which survive the most rigorous and repeated testing of every type, including cruel and unsociable taunts, are left standing. Ideas have no feelings. Ideas have no emotions. Ideas can’t be injured.” – Atheist Commenter

“Ideas should be only valued based on their logical benefit to human existence. For example, human rights make sense, we can and have examined, dissected them, and put them under much scrutiny. Unfortunately, even now we are still fighting for them despite the evidence of their benefit when we apply them. The same thing goes with traffic laws, we follow these procedures because their logic and use, in reality, has shown to prevent accidents. They make sense. God? Not proven to exist, believing it exists has no benefit to humanity in reality. Suffice to say, I agree with you. I just wanted to explain why. I want only the best ideas to survive, only the strongest ideas to be promulgated. That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be destroyed by the truth.” – Marquis Amon

Religions Promote Pseudo-Morality

If you are a religious believer in your religion’s exclusive brand of confessed morality, 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? All religions have some form of self-shaming institution, such as “sin” or its equivalents such as karma or something else often used to describe actions that create negative self-outlook or other-outlook where truly there is none.

This idea of sin points out how religions promote pseudo-morality. The easiest aspect to grasp about pseudo-morality is when it is claimed that you can do something immoral to yourself that is pseudo-morality. True morality is how one conducts themselves with others. There is no ethical violation of self. To understand this concept considers how consent violations are unethical and how one does not need to get consent from oneself. Thus, there cannot be a consent violation against “self” and the aspect of sin is pseudo-morality, which promotes that there can be a violation of the self.

Some will try to say that the violation is of a god but this is wrong because this is saying that someone else has control over what ethical things you do to yourself and what you do to yourself under your own consent. Likewise, another aspect of pseudo-morality is how religions seem to take the position that those people over there are different. Once you separate yourself from others, it is a short step from that to dehumanizing them. Once you do that, you open the door to hate people and dehumanizing hate tends to lead to violence.

Imagine you are god with all the normal powers claimed by religions: What would you do, to (for) the world, if you were god for a day? What wrongs would you right? What diseases would you wipe out? Who would you help? What peoples would you bless such that they were able to turn themselves around and really prosper? Now ask yourself: why does the religionist’s claimed god(s) not DO these things? Answer: because most humans just like you are more moral and caring than god(s) that is why.

Marquis Amon – “As for as pseudo morality goes, one can easily determine the difference is. You pointed out that morality affects others as behavior which is either beneficial or detrimental. Lust for example. If I desire a woman, have sexual thoughts of her but not touch or inform her, she is not affected. Essentially claiming otherwise is indicative to a thought crime. You have made this point yourself. Wrath? I am angry, but as you say, if you don’t allow it to transform into unethical behavior, there is no violation of another. Pride, same thing, of course, it can be detrimental because it could increase one’s ego, however, it in and of itself is not an ethical violation. Sloth? There is an animal called that, it lives its life just fine. Envy is another baseless moral point. “You have a great wife, I wish I was married to her”. Again, harmless if there is no unethical behavior. Eating a forbidden apple, fantasy.
Jesus spoke to a woman who asked him to heal her daughter, he regards her people as dogs feeding on scraps of the table of masters. After insulting her, she still begs him, he agrees only on seeing her faith of him. In other words, he dehumanized her, specifically inequality. Simple question. Could humans be moral without religion? Yes. We evolved this way for positive social maintenance.”

Addressing the Seven Dreaded Thinking Errors of Atheism

1. Don’t use or follow “Faith-Thinking” as any kind of support for beliefs; especially strong believes in anything, even more, be careful to not use, full-belief, in general, before reasonable investigation.

2. Don’t use or follow “Strong-Belief(s)” without reasonable justification like sound epistemic evidence. Not without valid and/or reliable reason and/or evidence as a sound/good support/justification for reasoned beliefs should.

3. Don’t use or follow “Strong Unsupported Claim(s), like claiming to know things you do not or cannot really claim justifiably to know. Knowing means you have epistemic evidence to convince others by its soundness and evidence quality.

4. Don’t fear or resist being thoughtfully questioned, if you are right you may get t grasp this better if wrong you are giving yourself the opportunity to see it differently, and if needed, change or amend the old thinking, belief(s), assumption(s), found wanting. Lies, fear questions truth should welcome them.

5. Don’t fear or resist Facts/Truth, instead of loving sound/soundness in offered/believed/accepted/assumed which is supported and justified with epistemic certainty that is valid and reliable in its nature or attributes.

6. Don’t “Fear or Resist” saying, you do not “know” when you don’t know. I know that seems simple, but few do it publicly enough. Do it more often!!!

7. Don’t use, follow, or unsupported beliefs/thinking “Faithism-Beliefs”, and after new explanation(s)/evidence(s)/justification(s) shows a need to adapt or change, you eagerly change. Especially after intellectually honest investigation shows or at least seems to express the old thinking/beliefs hold errors, or are even, possibly, now fully disproved, or deeply removed from the accuracy with the valid and reliable reason and/or evidence that is shown epistemically sound.

I value a reasoned thinking standard of myself as a Rationalist:

I hold a belief etiquette, that we should strive, to not believe things without first having reasoned belief acquisitions. Then good belief maintenance to check up on old assumed beliefs to see if their accuracy still matches the available evidence and/or reason. And lastly, honest belief relinquishment to any beliefs found wanting and amending those that still can be somewhat saved with new adapted changes.

Ask yourself honestly what is a god anyway?

Again, What is a god?

So, what is a god?

I Am a Different Kind of Atheist:

“Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist”

I am an axiological atheist and Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. And to more quickly understand Axiological Atheism, it is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism.

Highlighting Sound-Reasoning?

Religious beliefs often don’t stay in the “belief” category, as if it is something chosen temporarily if needed or changeable if required. No, what is most common is that religious beliefs are completely infused to the person’s identity, thus it’s not what they believe it is more a factor of who they are. What this means is if they are later challenged and given reason to let the belief go this is largely disrupted because they and the belief are mixed with the person’s identity making its loss, not just a possible belief loss but a perceived personal identity loss. Faith is being inspired to strong belief in that which, by the lack of proof, should inspire strong doubt. Faith is the self-indoctrination process of coming to believe in unjustified belief.

The turbulent seas of denial are ever crashing like a tsunami of avoidance on religion’s shores. With minds of cognitive decadence and intellectual dishonesty, they welcome this eroding of the religion-believers perceived need to change belief in the face of facts when they want to keep belief regardless. Thus, they joyfully dive in swimming deep under denials dark waters to the safety of blind ignorance.

Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature.

These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

Normalize people being nice to you without assuming they wanna sex. I strive to be nice to everyone but out of humanity, not sex seeking. I am not claiming to not have sex needs but it is not why I do kindness. I think people of high character should express humanity as freely as others seem to champion hate. I have Compassion, not Patience as an Atheist Activist. When challenging other on most things can induce aggressive feelings, thinking, words or behaviors thus failing at the excellence of thoughtfulness, openness, and compassion When we see people that have been indoctrinated as a child to believe it requires in, to me, for us nonbeliever atheist to require compassion for those we see as being blinded by forces in the mind of their past, that informed them in what to think or believe and they are hindered from reanalyzing the reason of what should or should not be believed.

I know I hold deep compassion for them, as I was them until 35 years old in college. Before that, I had started school to become a Christian counselor for alcohol and drug addiction, and during that learning, mainly I realized the truth of atheism. Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well.

Scientific atheism: uses the scientific method to justify non-belief in gods or the supernatural and scientific atheists may also reject all things not materialistic or evolutionary derived. Scientific atheists often start with the position of philosophical atheism and then, due to their scientific theorizing, concluding that the actions of a “god” have no place in any scientifically-controlled experiment and are simply myths people created to explain the natural scientific world they in less modern times could not understand. Informed consensus rule is a cornerstone of Atheistic thought. Scientific Atheism works on the principle that the utilisation of credible evidence in personal, political and national decisions be the main guide for societies. The consequences of choices take into account the understanding of a common empathy and compassion. Scientific Atheism analytically examines the failings of systems, which allow preferential treatment to the disadvantage of arbitrarily victimised groups. It acknowledges that the rich tapestry of humanity is not open to the selective interpretation of writings from ignorant times. ref

Pigeonholing scientific Atheism into a decidedly unacceptable category reeks of irresponsible promotion. It misrepresents a positive response to the dire circumstances afflicting a world in turmoil. Scientific Atheism places Homo sapiens in proper perspective in the Universe, away from unevidenced, dangerous and improbable illusions erroneously manufactured in the superstitious cauldrons of antiquity. Scientific Atheism unequivocally affirms that we are alone in a cosmos devoid of supernatural realms. The existence of such mental notions are invalidated by the total absence of evidence. Consequently, humanity has to deal with the psychological implications of that knowledge effectively if we are to survive. ref

Naturalist atheism: naturalist atheism is the philosophical doctrine that the observable physical world is all there is thus there can be no god. Most philosophers of science adhere strictly to this view and positively deny that any supernatural or miraculous effects or forces are possible thus one is almost required to hold a view of atheism. Naturalist atheists are driven by the humility lacking desire to plumb the depths of reality, to know what objectively exists, to understand how things fundamentally work, and to have maximally transparent explanations of phenomena. Naturalist atheism thus is a philo-scientific way of knowing what can justifiably believe which gets us reliable beliefs about the world. Naturalist atheism can be called a philo-scientific epistemology because it combines openness to philosophical critique with a reliance on scientific criteria of explanatory adequacy as vetted by that critique and the actual practice of science. Naturalist atheism holds that science and philosophy are continuous, interpenetrating and collaborative in our investigation of reality; neither is foundational to the other. Naturalist atheism mainly wants not to be deceived by supernatural or divine being claims, or to make errors of logic or method or assumptions when understanding the world which leave open the possibility of a God’s existence. ref

Materialistic atheism: materialists most likely value physicalism and may say that morality and concepts of god evolved thus extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so god is not reality nor is such myths authoritative. Atheists are usually materialists of some sort, rejecting the idea that there exists anything independent of the workings of matter and energy. Materialism often entails atheism unless a person believes in a purely physical god, but atheism does not entail materialism. It may be hard to believe in a god in a materialistic philosophy, but an atheistic philosophy need not be materialistic. Materialistic atheism could involve an individualistic thinking earthier consciously or subconsciously to fulfill a survival of the fittest “things” or “needs” (to consume or accumulate) in order to “survive” are a value physicalism requires since you are the only thing you can count on, knowing no god is waiting to help. ref

Empiricism atheism: empiricism is an epistemological theory which argues that all knowledge must be acquired a posteriori and that nothing can be known a priori. Another way of putting it is that empiricism denies the existence of purely intellectual knowledge and argues that only sense-knowledge can exist. Empiricism is a common philosophical belief among many atheists. They believe that empirical science is the only true path to understanding. If you cannot see it, smell it, taste it, hear it, etc., it cannot be known. Empiricism atheists say that if you cannot prove something empirically, such as the existence of God, you are irrational for believing it. ref, ref

Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity. To me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from who they are shaming them for being human. In addition, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from real history, real science or real morality to pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and pseudomorality. Moreover, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from rational thought, critical thinking, or logic. Likewise, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from justice, universal ethics, equality, and liberty.

Yes, religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from loved ones, and religion is a toxic mental substance that can divide a person from humanity. Therefore, to me, promoting religion as real is too often promote a toxic mental substance that should be rejected as not only false but harmful as well even if you believe it has some redeeming quality. To me, promoting religion as real is mentally harmful to a flourishing humanity. Religion may have once seemed great when all you had or needed was to believe. Science now seems great when we have facts and need to actually know. Theism is presented as adding love to your life…

But to me, more often it peddles in ignorance (pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality), tribalism (strong in-group loyalty if you believe like them and aversion to difference; like shunning: social rejection, emotional distance, or ostracism), and psychological terrorism; primarily targeting well being both safety and comfort (you are born a sinner, you are evil by nature, you are guilty of thought crimes, threats of misfortune, suffering, and torture “hell”). Hell yes, I am against the fraud that is the world religions. Why not be against the promotion of woo-woo pseudo-truth, when I am very against all pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. Along with the hate, such as sexism and homophobia are too often seen or the forced indoctrination of children.

And this coercive indoctrination of the world religions, with their pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality mainly furthered by forced Hereditary Religion (family or cultural, religious beliefs forced on children because the parent or caregiver believes that way). This is sadly done, even before a child can be expected to successfully navigate reason; it’s almost as if religious parents believe their “woo-woo pseudo-truth” lies will not be so easily accepted if they wait on a mind that can make its own choice. Because we do see how hard it is for the ones forced into Hereditary Religion. It seems difficult for them to successfully navigate reason in relation to their woo-woo pseudo-truth, found in a religion they were indoctrinationally taught to prefer, because after being instructed on how to discern pseudo-truth as truth than just wishing that their blind servitude belief in a brand of religious pseudo-truth devoid of justified, valid or reliable reason and evidence. I care because I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist.

Thus, this religious set of “woo-woo pseudo-truth” pushed on the simple-minded as truth bothers me greatly. So, here it is as simple as I can make it you first need a good thinking standard to address beliefs one may approach as a possible belief warranted to be believed. I wish to smash that lying pig of religion with the Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology Questions (a methodological use of philosophy). Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authenticly truthful rationalists that put facts over faith. I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back.

May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science. What religious in most of their arguments try to do, is to act as if they reverse engineer facts of reality, trying to prove a god something or other has to be the only way it could be the way it is. Of course, as an atheist but more importantly a supporter of science and the valid and reliable reason and evidence they work from I know religion is false. I know the work of reverse engineer facts of reality has largely been done and is being done by science which is why we know about the truth of evolution over creationism in the first place as well as the truth of reality that contradicts or completely challenges any argument the supporters of religion can offer. I realize they are trying to reoffer thinking that is already reasonably been disregarded as the wishful thinking fantasies it always was.

No, science CAN NOT be with religion. Science is a method to understand the world as it is, which is naturalistic only, not one shred of magic. In fact, the scientific method assumes Methodological Naturalism, because that is all that has ever been found and is the most likely thing that ever will be found. As religion is not intended to represent the world as it is but instead what it is not the stupid supernatural, which is the thing of fantasy, wishful thinking, and delusion. Science is a system where justified true beliefs are derived from objective methodologies such as the scientific method and religion is a system of unjustified beliefs based on subjective faith or revelation.

While scientists can agree upon the empirical nature of science, the steps from observations to law or theory are not without philosophical issues thus our beliefs. But as I say they are justified true beliefs validated with reliability following reason and evidence to reach beliefs worthy to be called knowledge religion is not. The issue of word usage of belief is troubling for many science-minded thinkers who don’t get the epistemology consideration of words they mostly think of standard usage. In epistemology, knowledge is an epistemic property of belief, as in general when a belief is justified and true because of valid and/or reliable reason and evidence it is warranted to be called knowledge. Many still think that ‘to believe’ has no connection with ‘to know’ believing this because it is thought ‘knowledge’ is derived from facts and ‘belief’ is derived without facts, so the verbs knowing and believing too many are therefore seen different.

Science, as we know it is not just an accumulation of facts or evidence from observation and experimentation it is also interpretation which that can turn into scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. But it is this interpretation that reaches conclusions which are “accepted” as knowledge is saying epistemologically are a justified true belief which equals knowledge. Religion Vc. Science, don’t confuse beliefs. We must not confuse beliefs, religion is beliefs built from myths devoid of corroborating evidence. Science uses corroborating evidence to establish what is true and that offers something worthy to believe.

“Rationalist”

Rationalist atheism: Almost all rationalists are atheists or agnostics. There has been a long link between rationalism and the scientific method. There is also a long tradition of philosophers who have approached philosophical and ethical questions from a rationalist perspective. Bertrand Russell’s “The Faith of a Rationalist” is an example of a rationalist approach to religious belief. Rationalism is an approach to life-based on reason and evidence. Rationalism encourages ethical and philosophical ideas that can be tested by experience and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience. Because rationalism encourages people to think for themselves, rationalists have many different and diverse ideas and continue in a tradition from the nineteenth century known as freethought. However, most rationalists would agree. There is no evidence for any arbitrary supernatural authority e.g. God or Gods. The best explanation so far for why the natural world looks the way it does is the theory of evolution first put forward by Charles Darwin.

All human beings should have fundamental rights. Some rationalists and humanists go further and argue that animals should also have rights as they are living, sensate beings. Society is should be an “open society”, where each individual is able to live “freely and equally practice their chosen life stance, and in which human potential is realized to the benefit of the individual and the community at large.” (Levi Fragell, President of International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2001) As well as approaching life through reason, rationalists enjoy those things in life where emotion and imagination are to the fore. Rationalist atheists wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality.

Rationalist atheists want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. Rationalist atheists want to know what is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding.

These kinds of cognitive success do of course often have practical value. True beliefs about local geography help us get to work on time; knowledge of mechanics allows us to build vehicles; understanding of general annual weather patterns helps us to plant our fields at the right time of year to ensure a good harvest. By contrast, false beliefs about the existence of weapons of mass destruction can lead nations to fight hugely expensive wars that are ultimately both destructive and useless. It is fairly uncontroversial that we tend to care about having various cognitive or epistemic goods, at least for their practical value, and perhaps also for their own sakes as cognitive successes.

There is not just one type of rationalism or use of rationally. Epistemic rationality: believing, and updating on evidence, so as to systematically improve the correspondence between your map and the territory. The art of obtaining beliefs that correspond to reality as closely as possible. This correspondence is commonly termed “truth” or “accuracy”, and we’re happy to call it that. Instrumental rationality: achieving your values. Not necessarily “your values” in the sense of being selfish values or unshared values: “your values” means anything you care about. The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences. On LW we sometimes refer to this as “winning”. 1 2 3

I am a Rationalist, I wish to follow and inspire in others a desire or value in or for epistemology, axiology, and rationality. I want to strive for a corresponding and coherent value assessment along with an epistemological rationally, rational epistemology, as well as an accurate or at least a methodological rationally connecting to an epistemic value of the epistemology state of things or ideas. What is it to be Rational? To be “rational” is generally considered to mean employing logical consistency and deriving appropriate conclusions from acceptable assumptions. Epistemic value is a kind of value which attaches to cognitive successes such as true beliefs, justified beliefs, knowledge, and understanding.

Be thoughtful in what you say, because, words once released have power, due them being a method of transferring feelings not just ideas. Words are world builders and dramatic destructors. They can build mental castles to protect or dungeons to torment. May I strive to be kind to others with my words. And, I think back on my life, it’s not the times I was the most selfish but the times I was kind, that brighten my life. May I now make an even stronger effort to do so in all I do, as it’s so valuable to an enriched wellbeing in life. It saddens me when proponents of atheism also seem to be proponents of anti-intellectualism either in rejecting philosophy or science. I am against all pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist.

Therefore, I am happy to correct the errors in thinking many atheists, agnostics, and skeptics may have, mainly because of the overconfidence in skepticism and the lack of a respect for the supremacy reason needed for logic which is needed to standardize validity. Religion should be seen as ancient mythology to be marveled and laughed at, rather than promoted as truth when it is only feeble pseudo-truth. And why do we so often error it thinking to wish on myths and not believe in scientific proven “godless-reality”, is because We are emotional beings who have a thinking strategy called reason we only sometimes use. Simply, We are not rational beings who have a bonding strategy called emotions we sometimes use. People all the time talk about, “I believe” in regards to religion and gods. No, likely you never had a chance to first investigate all the facts then choose what to believe or not believe.

You like everyone else raised in a religious house were indoctrinated to the same religion your family held before your birth. So you did not so much “believe” as “give in and slavishly agreed” to what you were told. Thus, you are more rightly called an agreer then a believer, especially when you don’t read the holy book you say you totally believe in. It seems to me, religious believers are usually ignorant of the truth or willfully uninformed, foolish or indoctrinated to keep believing these conspiracy theories of reality that religions are with their magic claims, when presented with the facts and stupid or brainwashed to keep believing when they realize that the beliefs they have contained falsehoods, inaccurate information, or lies.

Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Rationalism, Freethinker, Humanism & Secular humanism? Rationalism is a philosophy in which a high regard is given to reason (specifically logic) and to empirical observation. Freethinker a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious life-stance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system.

Moreover, HUMANISM: to me, is relatively the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can.

The need for Epistemic Rationality. I hate when you are so ignorant about something that you have no idea just how ignorant you are about it and sadly likewise don’t even know where to correctly seek out what you need to stop being as ignorant about it as you are. Being Epistemically Rational?

The Way of a Sound Thinker?Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

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

A General Thinking in all My Epistemology Theorizing is Justificationism

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

My response, No, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if it’s warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes. “Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

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

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved.

Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasoned, superlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

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

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

with valid and reliable reason (sound reasioning) and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality (Highlighting Sound-Reasoning?)

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be Right (sound reasoning) reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer.

Sound/Soundness is often used to mean sure/sureness/epistemic certainty, or clear and reasoned reasoning, or critically throughout thinking. Sound reasoning/thinking is simply reasoning that makes sense and follows some sort of logic. Sound reasoning means logical reasoning. Reasoning in this context is similar to meaning that one can give, has given, or will give epistemic quality support or justification reasons and it involves logic. ref

If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally. Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to epistemic truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief.

Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability. I can say I know that no gods exist because a god is a non-reality commodity (unjustified claim referring to a proposed thing not evident in reality). Thus, by definition is not a thing that exists in reality, therefore such a claimed thing is not real to reality, and this means in reality gods don’t exist. Unless you have some reality provable facts to support claims of these non-reality gods to which are unjustifiably claimed? Facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in science realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty.

Religion has been a reason for violence and harm and at times a promoter of peace. Science does not need to fill the gap of religion. We need to remove it as it was always an abstraction not a realistic thing to being with. Not one thing religion offers that is thought of as good that cannot be done by persons not following any religion. Atheist generally is simply life with religion removed, all its pseudo meaning as well as pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudo-morality. We have real science, realistic history and can access real morality with a blend of philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, and cognitive science.

World, do you hear me now, because you were nothing but silent as I suffered extreme religious oppression and to this news, you simply spit in my face telling my religious freedom and all I can think is, no, you mean my parent’s religious freedom, which may I remind you is a violation of my religious freedom and was instead my religious oppression. Where are you now, while millions await this same fate if you keep doing nothing? If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights. Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug, to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

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

My goal is not just to be an atheist but use my life and talent to create Educational Writing, Art, Blogs, Video, Speaking, and Poetry a lot of them which I use directly or indirectly for my out atheism activism, thus I am mostly an activist, to me. Am I a survivor? I fell as you tripped me again and from your hate, I remove myself from such mind and being corruption freely walking into the gates of love so longed for. You have not beaten me, you cannot stop me, you don’t want me to live, to thrive, to be all the best I can be but you hate, and yet I am still here, a survivor, a full life liver, a thriver, as well as a warrior for kindness and compassion, reaching the care I was rarely offered, as a gift to the ones so desperately oppressed under your harsh gaze.

May we all be free and the positive best we can be, I know I am as best I can. I am here growing stronger every day. Who am I, you ask, I respond loud and proud, I am a survivor and even in these chains from my past, you will not stop me. Sometimes, we need to see the truth, that many people are liars and deniers while claiming they are believers. Once we stop seeing the dignity of others we feel free to violate them with impunity. But when dignity is a friend respect has become once path. I am a survivor! May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

Some people may notice I am kind of a different kind of atheist this is because I am an axiological atheist (value theory or value science atheist). Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism. Remember when someone announces that they are an atheist; listeners may assume there is only one type of atheist available, when really she is a different type of atheist. As an axiological atheist Axiology is a large motivation and it is value theory which is a lens to view and valuize or value judge worth or what is worthy as well as what is good or bad of greater or lesser value.

To read more on value theory check it out online at: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (value theory) Link

As an axiological atheist, I see intrinsic value in people and want them to see that value in themselves as well as others. Doing such would never allow for a god who devalues you and asks you to devalue others. Similarly to follow such a high standard I too must value myself, value others, and strive to help other people value others. I strive to be as strong in devaluing myths and lies as I am in valuing the person who may hold them. Value to an axiologist has multiple realms/categories and meanings going from internal value, external value, and systemic or global value. Likewise, there can be value distinctions differentiating, for example, between the instrumental value (being good for some purpose) and technical value (being good at doing something) or between the contributory value (being good as part of a whole) and final value (being good as a whole).

Marquis Amon – “Axiological atheism makes sense on the premise that god is a nonempirical being. Next, as you address, it is a null hypothesis.An idea that through testing has proven to be false. It was Epicurus who addressed the no goodness in god most famously. The presence of evil and the inaction of god either means god is powerless against evil or allows it. If god is powerless against evil, god deserves no regard. If god allows it, then god is evil. Then let us consider the “Hitchen’s challenge” that is to say does religion offer any benefit that lacks a secular equivalent. So far, no one ever found one… So that means in terms of reality that all human accomplishments come from humans only(no god/divine intervention). So we can say that morality and any claim associated with god is false and the metaphysical position says these things are evolutionary in human development.”

To read more on axiology check it out online at: Encyclopedia Britannica (axiology) Link

To read more on the science of axiology check it out online at: Robert S. Hartman Institute (applications of axiology) Link

Axiological Atheism is a type of atheist philosophy it can be thought of as similar to existentialist antitheism and Humanist antitheism. Moreover, here is a short explanation from Wikipedia, Axiological atheism: “Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute”, such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values permitting individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx and Freud used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in his Pensées.” To read more on atheist philosophies check it out online at: Wikipedia (Atheism – Atheist philosophies) Link

Axiological Atheism would affirm rejecting gods and does not have to lead to moral nihilism or moral relativism but can allow and axiological atheism supports a kind of atheistic objective morality foundation. Also, axiological atheism supports that life has value and meaning as well as can be rich and meaningful. To read more on objective morality check it out online at: Strong Atheism (case for objective morality) Link

Again, some may not like what I am but your lack of agreement to my educated philosophical unbelief stance does little to either diminish its reticence or truth. Atheism is just the beginning; now it’s time to solve the harder questions. There are many different kinds of atheism but to offer a cleaner rough view here are a few organized common categories, 7 sets will be offered some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot.

1. Difference in Knowledge

2. Difference in Affirmation

3. Difference in Scope

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

5. Difference in Openness

6. Difference in Action

7. Difference in Bent on Religiosity

To read more on this check it out online at: Commonsense Atheism (17 Kinds of Atheism) Link

Some may say it’s all atheism why complicate the issue? To say why complicate you’re thinking is paramount to saying “why Be educated at all in your unbelief?” “Why defend it with reasoning or evidence?” “Why strive to be more informed on the untruth of religion or gods?” That can’t truly be something we who are critical thinkers really support to champion an uninformed atheist position just because it is simpler? I support nonbelievers just calling themselves, an atheist. I am not saying my way of being an axiological atheist is the only or even the best way for all other nonbelievers, in fact, I only am only mentioned, “me”, my philosophical atheist stance and wanted to quickly explain how, why and in what way I disbelieve.

I am not the thought police nor would I ever support that or let others be thought police to me. As they say atheism is not a group movement or a cult-like religion so to me there is no one correct liable all should or must follow. Just like how some atheists prefer bright, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, secular humanist, etc. whatever xyz. We who value critical thinking must hold reason above opinions. So I say go you I value people being authentic in whatever way they see right to define their personal disbelief. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.

To read more on this check it out online at: American Atheists (What is Atheism?) Link

Atheists, as a whole, are not a unified group, so the accusation that “atheists” are doing x, y, and z hold little water. In fact, a disaffection with organized religion, and the potential for groupthink, is what causes many believers to abandon faith and come out as atheists. It doesn’t follow that such individuals would happily join another organized group. The debate within the atheistic community is robust – debates even about whether there is even an “atheistic community” at all, for instance – and the fact that this debate exists presupposes no dogmatic mandate from an organized group. It does follow from this lack of organization that there is no atheist equivalent of the Bible, Koran, or other holy text. There are, of course, atheist writings, but one does not need to adhere to opinions held by Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens to be considered an atheist. Some atheists will actively oppose what these kind of authors do and say.

To read more on this check it out online at: Rational wiki (Atheism) Link

Some argue strong atheists add some dictator killed people so we should not have hard atheist stances. I reject this as flawed thinking most claimed atheist killers did not kill for atheism but were killers who may have rejected the concept of gods. Likewise, in two other ways, I will reject this reasoning first my hard stance is humanitarian such as the hate of injustice is the motivation for justice. The other being even if atheists had killed it means little as it would be only the people involved. In a since all atheists are an island of personal persuasion, belief, and accountability. As such atheism is not an actual group or sect like a religion so we have no affiliations to the action or philosophical thinking of any other nonbelievers.

“Axiological”

Axiological Atheist: Facebook Page

Axiological atheism: is a constructive Value centered ethics driven atheism which rejects the existence of gods in favor of a “higher absolute,” such as humanity and society. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to faith or god myths. Axiological or constructive atheism conveys messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness. Axiological or constructive atheism life meaning in humanity, ethics, and values surpasses one of the most common criticisms of atheism that denying the existence of a god leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation or renders life meaningless and miserable. Axiological Atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument-driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, ignosticism, apatheism, secularism, and humanism. Axiological Atheist, can be understood as a value theory or value science Atheist. As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoning is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people.

Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life. You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science, and personal experience which to are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy, and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value-driven life lived in this reality. What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling? Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness.

Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture. When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning. Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way. Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of the neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy.

Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function. Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings. Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative). The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value: 1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations 2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible) 3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles). The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors. 1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas” 2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.

The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions. Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying the science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Tenets of Secular Ethics involve a width and diversity of their philosophical views, but secular ethicists generally share one or more principles: • Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds. • Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior. • Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles. • Societies should if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form. 1 2 3

As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’ Axiological “Presumptive-Value Failure”

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

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

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

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

“Axiology and Value Theory?”

“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thought, belief, emotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not to occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.” – Wikipedia

Theoretical philosophy? – Wikipedia

“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum. – Wikipedia

Noradrenaline and our Presumptions of Reality (regulation of the Brain’s ‘Inner World’)?

Axiological “Presumptive-Value”

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

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

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

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

My response, Well with or without valid justification because of evidence. As in you can’t claim to know the value of something you can’t demonstrate as having good qualities to attach the value claim too so if you lack evidence of the thing in question then you can not validate its value. So it’s addressing justificationism (uncountable) Theory of justification, An (philosophy standard) approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary; thus, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. Think of is as a use matrix. If I say this is of great use for that, can you validate its use or value, and can I use this as a valid method to state a valid justification for my claims without evidence to value judge from? No, thus an axiological presumptive-value failure as a valid anything.

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

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

“Methodological”

Objectivism atheism: objectivism holds that in order to obtain knowledge, man must use an objective process of thought. The essence of objective thought is, first, integration of perceptual data in accordance with logic and, second, a commitment to acknowledging all of the facts of reality, and only the facts. In other words, the only thoughts to consider when forming knowledge of reality are those logically derived from reality. objectivism as an atheistic thinking upholds ultimate reason, not faith of any kind could be seen as a form of agnosticism. Objectivism atheist asserts proof of disbelief by our level of knowledge such as a certainty of religious rightness only a subjective deduction, probability of rightness is an unreasonable inconclusive induction, probability of wrongness is the most reasonable conclusive induction, certainty of complete wrongness holds more reason but still can be only a subjective deduction. Regardless of what certain religions, scientists, or philosophers believe or say they have to either prove that a thing is certain (i.e. it can never be altered) or they have to accept its probabilistic nature (i.e. there might be a time in the future or unobserved past when the reason does not hold). 1

Investigative atheism: investigative atheism may take some interest in showing how the skeptical theistic way of reasoning, brought into the larger flow of total evidence skepticism, can be used to expose certain additional sources of doubt about theism sufficient to prevent overhasty migration to theism on the part of those left unconvinced by atheism. Moreover, and more positively, it can be used to inspire a greater openness to new religiously-relevant investigative results in the future. With these thoughts in mind, let’s add two more skeptical theses to our list: We have no good reason for thinking that the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism we know of are representative, relative to the property of (potentially) constituting a successful proof that theism is false, of the arguments from horrors or hiddenness against theism there are. And we have no good reason for thinking that the possible goods we know of are representative, relative to the property of consistency with a person being axiologically ultimate, of the possible goods there are but are always investigating and open. 1

Logical atheism: logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which asserts the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), non-physicality, justice, and mercy. Logical arguments for atheism attempt to show that the concept of god is self-contradictory with some known fact. These incompatible-properties arguments attempt to demonstrate a contradiction in the concept of God. If an argument of this type were successful, it would mean that the existence of god is utterly impossible; there is a 0% probability that gods exists. 1 2

Evidential atheism: thinks that whether or not belief in a divine being is epistemically acceptable will be determined by the evidence. I intend to treat “evidence” in a broad sense including a priori arguments, arguments to the best explanation, inductive and empirical reasons, as well as deductive and conceptual premises. (Also note that one could be an evidentialist theist.) The evidentialist theist and the evidentialist atheist may have a number of general epistemological principles concerning evidence, arguments, implication in common, but then disagree about what the evidence is, how it should be understood, and what it implies. They may disagree, for instance, about whether the values of the physical constants and laws in nature constitute evidence for intentional fine-tuning, but agree that whether God exists is a matter that can be explored empirically. 1

Philosophical atheism: uses philosophy to justify non-belief. Philosophical atheists have not shared a common set of atheism no god or gods exist views, philosophical convictions can often set them off from other groups of atheism thinkers. There are different kinds of philosophical atheists as well as many philosophical justifications for atheism. Many rationalist atheists feel that the idea of a god something as presented by the major religions is essentially self-contradictory and that it is logically impossible that such a god something could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism, because they see no evidence that a god something exists. Of course, some people are atheists without having any particular logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most comfortable, common-sense position to take. Philosophical atheism is different addressing one of agnosticism’s biggest objections the limit to knowledge a god something exists or agnosticism’s believed impossibility to prove the nonexistence of something. There are many counterexamples to prove the nonexistence of something.

For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether a god somethings or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate. However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a god something is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of a god something. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counterexample. If on the other hand, we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn’t there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with the largest primes because we can prove that they don’t exist. Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do.

To assume that a god something exists is to make an assumption that probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere a god something might be to prove that he doesn’t exist anywhere. If a god something interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable. If a god something is essentially undetectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue that if a god something does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist. Things do not exist merely because they have been defined to do so. We know a lot about the definition of Santa Claus–what he looks like, what he does, where he lives, what his reindeer are called, and so on. But that still doesn’t mean that Santa exists. 1

Ontological atheism: ontological atheism asserts Ontological theism arguments aim too high. Just like logical calculus cannot ascertain a specific basic proposition is correct, existential calculus should not be able to conclude that some specific being exists. Logical calculus can show that if a bachelor exists then a man exists (since a bachelor is, specifically, a man), and existential calculus might be able to show that if certain things exist then a god something exists. But ontological arguments try to prove that something (god) exists without committing to the existence of any specific thing. They can, therefore, be roughly divided into several types:- (a) ones that assume that a god something exists from the get-go, but disguise it in some way; (b) ones that make an error in existential calculus, so are not sound; (c) ones that are correct but trivial, e.g. showing that the sum of all things exists in some sense. rethinks if one agrees that the existence of a god something has indeed been proven, you still really don’t know much about that god other than that it is infinite and perfect. These characteristics seem to be quite dangerous in light of the characteristics of a god something that have been posited by many organized religions. They posit someone who cares for us and who would simultaneously damn us to eternity in hell for our failure to believe in him thus we cannot and should not believe in a god something.

Using rationality, one cannot conceive of a god something with infinite perfection, with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human motivation, characteristics, or behavior) or an infinite god holding judgments or care about what humans do. Ontological atheism reveals that the Ontological theism argument is problematic on four grounds: A) It defines a god something as a Necessary being which is necessarily O, and then “derives” that god is a necessary being. This isn’t so much a flaw as it is misleading. B) It assumes that which it seeks to prove, namely it assumes that the Necessary-god-Something is logically possible, which denies the very possibility that god doesn’t exist. Instead of wrestling with the claim that god doesn’t exist and showing it is false, the argument a-priori assumes that it is false. C) It relies on a confusion between epistemic and logical possibility. As a broad proposition, the Necessary-god-Something needs to be treated as an epistemic possibility, leading to a weakened 1B which cannot support the rest of the argument. D) Even the weakened 1B should not be accepted. Like all Necessary postulates, that a Necessary-god-Something exists is either true in all possible worlds or not true in all possible worlds. The argument doesn’t advance the position that it is true in all possible worlds. 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.

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.* Ontology “Reality” questions/assertion: Witness gives evidence about the claim. 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? 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).

To me, belief-ontologies address the conceptual schemas involved, at the intersection of three elements: A belief is a placeholder for a mental agreement to an offered idea, behavior, or thing. We don’t know what us being accurately believed and this means all beliefs are open to challenge or they should be. Many people either have no standard to how they test or process their thinking and thus have untrustworthy and such a lack of a developed thought structure employ thinking systems with a high susceptibility to flaws, And this is where we use ontological challenging or ontological disproofs which are logical arguments posed against arguments made by an attacker/challenger to hone in and access the thinking of believing flaws, and the attacker capability to exploit a flaw. Ontological disproofs, are sophisticated ontological arguments, ontological challenges, or ontological disproofs accusations that demand equally sophisticated responses, to which, many people are unprepared. Belief or argument forms should be valid, to prove them sound or unsound, strong/weak, or well defined/undefined, as weak premises must be shown to be false. By use ontological challenging, you are shining a light on its ways claimed or points proposed, outlined, or arranged which equals a thing or its qualities to define it that makes the depth and fullness to a being or thing, like just what is provisional about the thing in question or offer, are the characteristics of adequate development structure and infrastructure of the ontology involved in claims or propositions as truth, fact, or knowledge?

One ontological criticism focuses on the semantics that are given for quantifiers qualities used or involved as the notation of the language representations of the contents of belief talk, proposing that the qualities offered are fully alike (unequivocal) when the items or properties identified to you are likely one of the three partly unlike (equivocal). To me, ontologies are like an adequate way or web of elements involved in the thingness of things or ideas. Point by slow methodological point, is the most effective way to use ontological challenging. Ontologically challenge needs to be done, in order to develop in the other person, an ontological insecurity about what the person, place, thing, or idea are the construction of and just what is being claimed, portrayed, or proposed as truth, fact, or knowledge? A belief or set of beliefs, likely have a relationship between ideas of the thing expose the cracks and fissure in the conceptualizations divided up or overlap but often while a belief or set of beliefs are offered with assurance, they instead ontologically inadequate or almost completely ontologically empty.

By exposing ontological vulnerabilities or weakness in a belief or set of beliefs can rise person’s sense of ontological Insecurity as the thinker realized they may not know that that know. In my way of thinking as ontological insecurity refers or relates to in an existential sense a person’s sense of “belief” deflation, discrediting, or disproving. Such an ontologically insecure thinker, maybe so ontologically desperate, to stop/lower believing/accepting the level of “reality or existence” of the things or ideas they were just referring to. In contrast, the ontologically secure thinker, maybe so ontologically stable in relation to ontological commitment of their fragments involved to feel a high level. Ontological arguments or Ontological commitment need to demonstrate or require demonstration of the disciplined or disordered structures but, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion. 1, 2

Metaphysical atheism: metaphysical atheism can include any doctrines that hold to a atheistic metaphysical monism (the homogeneity of reality). Only a metaphysical atheism is based on absolute metaphysical atheism thus subscribe to some degree of physicalism, and explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings most notably gods. Metaphysical atheism may be either: a) absolute — an explicit denial of God’s existence associated with materialistic monism (all materialistic trends, both in ancient and modern times); b) relative — the implicit denial of God in all philosophies that, while they accept the existence of an absolute, conceive of the absolute as not possessing any of the attributes proper to God: transcendence, a personal character or unity. Relative atheism is associated with idealistic monism (apantheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism). Metaphysical atheism could be the view that a god exists but doesn’t have a mind, which is basically a special type of deism. One important distinction is precisely whether an atheist can be a deist or pantheist. One view of atheism is that no gods can exist. Another view is merely that personal gods don’t exist. 1

Epistemological atheism: highlights a branch of philosophy that deals with determining what is and what is not true, and why we believe or disbelieve what we or others do. On one hand, this is begging the question of having the ability to measure “truth” – as though there is an “external” something that one measures against. Epistemology is the analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, what we can and cannot know, and how we can know that there are things we know we cannot know. In Greek episteme, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and logos, meaning “discourse, study, ratio, calculation, reason. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. In other words, it is the academic term associated with study of how we conclude that certain things are true. Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. From this atheist orientation, there is no, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any “external” something so there can be no god-concept. Many debates between atheist and theists revolve around fundamental issues which people don’t recognize or never get around to discussing. Many of these are epistemological in nature: in disagreeing about whether it’s reasonable to believe in the existence of a god something, to believe in miracles, to accept revelation and scriptures as authoritative, and so forth, atheists and theists are ultimately disagreeing about basic epistemological principles. Without understanding this and understanding the various epistemological positions, people will just end up talking past each other. it’s common for Epistemological atheism to differ in what they consider to be appropriate criteria for truth and, therefore, the proper criteria for a reasonable disbelief. Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of Christianity.

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge. Epistemology “Truth” questions/assertion: Lawyer searches for warrant or justification for the claim. Epistemology, (understanding what you know or can know; as in you do have anything 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 were). -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? 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) Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

In addition, when atheist make claims related to naturalism, make personal claims, or make accusations against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards. For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support. And they have argued that the evidence in favor of a god something’s existence is too weak, or the arguments in favor of concluding there is no a god something are more compelling. Traditionally the arguments for a god something’s existence have fallen into several families: ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments, miracles, and prudential justifications. For a detailed discussion of those arguments and the major challenges to them that have motivated the atheist conclusion, the reader is encouraged to consult the other relevant sections of the encyclopedia. Arguments for the non-existence of a god something are deductive or inductive.

Deductive arguments for the non-existence of a god something are either single or multiple property disproofs that allege that there are logical or conceptual problems with one or several properties that are essential to any being worthy of the title “GOD.” Inductive arguments typically present empirical evidence that is employed to argue that a god something’s existence is improbable or unreasonable. Briefly stated, the main arguments are: a god something’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus. The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good being. Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the a god-something hypothesis an unlikely explanation. Widespread non-belief and the lack of compelling evidence show that a god something who seeks belief in humans does not exist. Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and only physical entities and causes exist, have also led many to the atheism conclusion. 1 2 3 4

Apistevist atheism (To me, it is what I would call anti-Fideist atheism): an atheist is one who is not a theist, one who is not a believer; an agnostic is one who lacks knowledge; Apistevist is the term for one who lacks or denies faith, especially of the religious or superstition variety.

Apistevist, I happen to know many people who are hard-core theists and insist that their faith is rational, based on things they see as evidence supporting or convincing what they feel is a need for religious faith. Then there are other religious believers who go the route of pure and simple faith without feeling the need for evidence. Apistevist (noun) – a person who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense. An Apistevist atheist (anti-Fideist atheist) rejects how many theists arguing for their beliefs coming from faith alone even if believers think it has some kind of evidence. Popular YouTube atheist Aron Ra states that he is an apistevist who denies that he has faith (in anything). AronRa defines ‘faith’ as: Belief without evidence and got this term “apistevist” from Kate Fahr (BionicDance) I believe. Apistevism means specifically “not relying on religious faith to discern facts.” The god claim is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism! Fideism/Faith-ism (“faith-drunk-thinkers”) (/ˈfiːdeɪɪzəm, ˈfaɪdi-/) is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths (see natural theology). The word fideism comes from fides, the Latin word for faith, and literally means “faith-ism.” Theologians and philosophers have responded in various ways to the place of faith and reason in determining the truth of metaphysical ideas, morality, and religious beliefs.

A fideist is one who argues for fideism. Historically, fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Pascal, Kierkegaard, William James, and Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not always supported by their own ideas and works or followers. There are a number of different forms of fideism. Alvin Plantinga defines “fideism” as “the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth.” The fideist therefore “urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious,” and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason. The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith. Plantinga’s definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much “reason” per se—it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational—but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence. The doctrine of fideism is consistent with some, and radically contrary to other theories of truth:

Another form of fideism is assumed by Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal invites the atheist considering faith to see faith in God as a cost-free choice that carries a potential reward. He does not attempt to argue that God indeed exists, only that it might be valuable to assume that it is true. Of course, the problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it does not restrict itself to a specific God, although Pascal did have in mind the Christian God as is mentioned. Criticism of Pascal’s Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists, who questioned the ‘benefits’ of a deity whose ‘realm’ is beyond reason, and the religiously orthodox, who primarily took issue with the wager’s deistic and agnostic language. It is criticized for not proving God’s existence, the encouragement of false belief, and the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped. Nature as not a proof of the existence of God. Voltaire (another prominent French writer of the Enlightenment), a generation after Pascal, rejected the idea that the wager was “proof of God” as “indecent and childish”, adding, “the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists”.

Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof of God’s existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is “impossible to avoid” for any living person. He argued that abstaining from making a wager is not an option and that “reason is incapable of divining the truth”; thus, a decision of whether to believe in the existence of God must be made by “considering the consequences of each possibility”. Voltaire’s critique concerns not the nature of the Pascalian wager as proof of God’s existence, but the contention that the very belief Pascal tried to promote is not convincing. As Étienne Souriau explained, in order to accept Pascal’s argument, the bettor needs to be certain that God seriously intends to honor the bet; he says that the Wager assumes that God also accepts the bet, which is not proved; Pascal’s Bettor (a person who bets, typically regularly or habitually) is here like the fool who seeing a leaf floating on a river’s waters and quivering at some point, for a few seconds, between the two sides of a stone, says: “I bet a million with Rothschild that it takes finally the left path.”

And, effectively, the leaf passed on the left side of the stone, but unfortunately for the fool, Rothschild never said “I [will take that] bet”. Fideism (faith-ism) is Theistic Reality Confusion, theists like to confuse the understanding of atheism to lessen its obvious reason. So here’s a definition of atheism: all offered claims of god(s) are baseless and devoid of a shred of testable or provable evidence and the claims of or about gods either don’t represent in reality or claim to represent things contrary to reality requiring a conclusion of atheism (lack of belief or disbelief in theism). The god claim, is a clown car in the magic big top of Fideism (faith-ism)! Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism” 1, 2, 3

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

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

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

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

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

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

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

Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true. Ok, I am a kind of “Militant” Atheist. 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 minds. But instead, I wish to inspire your mind to reason and to thrive on the search for valid and reliable evidence as well as a high standard n your ethics of belief. This ethics of belief I hope everyone adopts is something like this: reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Sadly the professed thing of hope, “Religion” can be an and too often is an easy excuse to do horrible things, which is clear throughout history. I am a BIG fan of the truth.

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

My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!! I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly? Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value.

And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right (sound) thinking is reason, right (sound) reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

“Anarchist”

Politicians and preachers are one and the same: both work for a higher power than you, money and power. Ultimately, anarchy to atheism, goes past a simple atheism tendency to only attack god, while ignoring the state, capital, and other possible forms of domination, when anarchy atheists believe they have to attack all of it. “No gods, no masters” is an anarchist, feminist and labor slogan. No gods, no masters comes from a pamphlet handed out by the Industrial Workers of the World during the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike. The phrase is derived from the French slogan “Ni dieu ni maître!” (literally ‘Neither God nor master’) coined by the socialist Auguste Blanqui in 1880. First feminist usage was in 1914, Margaret Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters”. Margaret Sanger insisted that every woman was the mistress of her own body.”

Women without superstition: No gods – No Masters!” by Annie Laurie Gaylor is a collection of writings by women freethinkers during the 19th and 20th century. Today the slogan continues to find use in anarchist politics. An anthology of anarchist writing was collected under the title “No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism” Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular worldview, instead of luxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications. Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.

I am an anarcho-humanist (basically a socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist as well as rather liberal, progressive, and revolutionary, I want all positive change) You keep attacking activists and while you’re doing that, other activists and I will keep fighting for change. Sadly, you may change a few people where they lose their way in the momentum of activism. However, happily, while you’re doing that, other activists and I will help positively change the world. I hate when someone states anarchism is about not wanting to pay taxes, as if they don’t know the main persuasion of true anarchism is humanity, not selfishness of self only concern as in “i” language instead of “we” language of true anarchism is socialist anarchism that wishes to add us all in the liberation of humanity from oppressors, as much as possible. With a general rationale of compassion and comradery with our fellow humans, who we know are all our fellow humans, sisters, brothers, and others are all equal beings of dignity in one human family. My anarchism is because of my care for humanity. I will leave selfishness for the capitalists where it belongs. I do not support sucker-punching people, even Nazis. To me, violence should be for self-defense or other-defense. I only hit those that try to hit me or others around me, I am for non-aggression. What Inspires My Anarcho-Humanism:

We are all one connected human family.
No one owns the earth.
If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?

What inspires my anarcho-humanism has three core truths to my ethical anarchist persuasion:

1. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters = “Anarcho”).

We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, which then motivates the behavior of kindness. And kindness flourishes in openness and freedom. (No gods no masters as well as do no harm and do good = Anarcho-humanism) Lastly, I Am an Atheist-Humanist who is a Socialist, Collectivist, Mutualist, Anarchist: (Anarcho-Humanist) But Why do I Hate Religion? Religion and gods are an attack to self-freedom and self-mastery. I was asked why I openly and publicly am so passionate in my hate of religion. further asking what specifically in your life contributed to this outcome. I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization, and self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality.

Moreover, not only is religion a conspiracy theories of reality, it is a proud supporter of pseudohistory and or pseudoscience they also push pseudomorality. Religion on the whole to me deserves and earns hate, or at least disfavor when you really analyze it. Not to mention the corruption it has on politics or laws. As well as how destructive this unworthy political influence has and creates because of these false beliefs and the harm to the life of free adults but to the lives of innocent children as well (often robbed of the right to choose and must suffer indoctrination) as the disruption of educated even in public schools. Etc… I as others do have the right to voice our beliefs, just as I or others then have the right to challenge voiced beliefs. Religions and their god myths are a direct threat to Self-ownership and thus Human Rights. Long live mental freedom… 1, 2, 3

Why are most anarchists atheists?

by An Anarchist FAQ

“The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and in practice.

“Unless, then, we desire the enslavement and degradation of mankind . . . we may not, must not make the slightest concession either to the God of theology or to the God of metaphysics. He who, in this mystical alphabet, begins with A will inevitably end with Z; he who desires to worship God must harbour no childish illusions about the matter, but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.

“If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.” [God and the State, p. 25]

“God being everything, the real world and man are nothing. God being truth, justice, goodness, beauty, power and life, man is falsehood, iniquity, evil, ugliness, impotence, and death. God being master, man is the slave. Incapable of finding justice, truth, and eternal life by his own effort, he can attain them only through a divine revelation. But whoever says revelation, says revealers, messiahs, prophets, priests, and legislators inspired by God himself; and these, as the holy instructors of humanity, chosen by God himself to direct it in the path of salvation, necessarily exercise absolute power. All men owe them passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason, and against the justice of God no terrestrial justice holds.” [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Thirdly, religion has always been a conservative force in society. This is unsurprising, as it bases itself not on investigation and analysis of the real world but rather in repeating the truths handed down from above and contained in a few holy books. Theism is then “the theory of speculation” while atheism is “the science of demonstration.” The “one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.” Atheism, then, “expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind” while theism “is static and fixed.” It is “the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralysing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.” [Emma Goldman, Op. Cit., p. 243, p. 245 and pp. 246–7]

As the Bible says, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” We anarchists agree but unlike the church we apply this truth to religion as well. That is why we are, in the main, atheists. We recognise the destructive role played by the Church, and the harmful effects of organised monotheism, particularly Christianity, on people. As Goldman summaries, religion “is the conspiracy of ignorance against reason, of darkness against light, of submission and slavery against independence and freedom; of the denial of strength and beauty, against the affirmation of the joy and glory of life.” [Op. Cit., p. 240]

And, indeed, repression has been the fate of any group that has preached a radical message. In the middle ages, numerous revolutionary Christian movements and sects were crushed by the earthly powers that be with the firm support of the mainstream church. During the Spanish Civil War the Catholic church supported Franco’s fascists, denouncing the killing of pro-Franco priests by supporters of the republic while remaining silent about Franco’s murder of Basque priests who had supported the democratically elected government (Pope John Paul II is seeking to turn the dead pro-Franco priests into saints while the pro-Republican priests remain unmentioned). The Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Arnulfo Romero, started out as a conservative but after seeing the way in which the political and economic powers were exploiting the people became their outspoken champion.

He was assassinated by right-wing paramilitaries in 1980 because of this, a fate which has befallen many other supporters of liberation theology, a radical interpretation of the Gospels which tries to reconcile socialist ideas and Christian social thinking. Nor does the anarchist case against religion imply that religious people do not take part in social struggles to improve society. Far from it. Religious people, including members of the church hierarchy, played a key role in the US civil rights movement of the 1960s. The religious belief within Zapata’s army of peasants during the Mexican revolution did not stop anarchists taking part in it (indeed, it had already been heavily influenced by the ideas of anarchist militant Ricardo Flores Magon). It is the dual-nature of religion which explains why many popular movements and revolts (particularly by peasants) have used the rhetoric of religion, seeking to keep the good aspects of their faith will fighting the earthly injustice its official representatives sanctify. For anarchists, it is the willingness to fight against injustice which counts, not whether someone believes in god or not. We just think that the social role of religion is to dampen down a revolt, not encourage it. The tiny number of radical priests compared to those in the mainstream or on the right suggests the validity of our analysis. It should be stressed that anarchists, while overwhelmingly hostile to the idea of the Church and an established religion, do not object to people practicing religious belief on their own or in groups, so long as that practice doesn’t impinge on the liberties of others.

For example, a cult that required human sacrifice or slavery would be antithetical to anarchist ideas, and would be opposed. But peaceful systems of belief could exist in harmony within in anarchist society. The anarchist view is that religion is a personal matter, above all else — if people want to believe in something, that’s their business, and nobody else’s as long as they do not impose those ideas on others. All we can do is discuss their ideas and try and convince them of their errors. To end, it should be noted that we are not suggesting that atheism is somehow mandatory for an anarchist. Far from it. As we discuss in section A.3.7, there are anarchists who do believe in god or some form of religion. For example, Tolstoy combined libertarian ideas with a devout Christian belief. His ideas, along with Proudhon’s, influences the Catholic Worker organisation, founded by anarchists Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin in 1933 and still active today. The anarchist activist Starhawk, active in the current anti-globalization movement, has no problems also being a leading Pagan. However, for most anarchists, their ideas lead them logically to atheism for, as Emma Goldman put it, “in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 248] – An Anarchist FAQ – Medium

Anarchist clashes with religion

Anarcho-communism‘s main theorist Peter Kropotkin, “was a child of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution, and assumed that religion would be replaced by science and that the Church, as well as the State, would be abolished; he was particularly concerned with the development of a secular system of ethics which replaced supernatural theology with natural biology”. Errico Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, “the main founders of the Italian anarchist movement, both came from freethinking families (and Cafiero was involved with the National Secular Society when he visited London during the 1870s)”. In the French anarchist movement Eliseé Reclus was a son of a Calvinist minister, and began by rejecting religion before moving on to anarchism. Sebastien Faure, “the most active speaker and writer in the French movement for half a century, “ wrote an essay titled Twelve Proofs of God’s Inexistence. German insurrectionary anarchist Johann Most wrote an article called “The God Pestilence”. In the United States “freethought was a basically anti-christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism.

The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the excellent free-thought / free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer“. “Many of the anarchists were ardent freethinkers; reprints from freethought papers such as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, Freethought and The Truth Seeker appeared in Liberty…The church was viewed as a common ally of the state and as a repressive force in and of itself”.Late 19th century/early 20th Century anarchists such as Voltairine de Cleyre were often associated with the freethinkers movement, advocating atheism. In Europe, a similar development occurred in French and Spanish individualist anarchist circles. “Anticlericalism, just as in the rest of the libertarian movement, in another of the frequent elements which will gain relevance related to the measure in which the (French) Republic begins to have conflicts with the church…Anti-clerical discourse, frequently called for by the French individualist André Lorulot, will have its impacts in Estudios (a Spanish individualist anarchist publication). There will be an attack on institutionalized religion for the responsibility that it had in the past on negative developments, for its irrationality which makes it a counterpoint of philosophical and scientific progress. There will be a criticism of proselitism and ideological manipulation which happens on both believers and agnostics.”.

These tendencies will continue in French individualist anarchism in the work and activism of Charles-Auguste Bontemps and others. In the Spanish individualist anarchist magazine Ética and Iniciales “there is a strong interest in publishing scientific news, usually linked to a certain atheist and anti-theist obsession, a philosophy which will also work for pointing out the incompatibility between science and religion, faith and reason. In this way, there will be a lot of talk on Darwin´s theories or on the negation of the existence of the soul.”. Spanish anarchists in the early 20th century were responsible for burning several churches, though many of the church burnings were actually carried out by members of the Radical Party while anarchists were blamed. The implicit and/or explicit support by church leaders for the National Faction during the Spanish Civil War greatly contributed to anti-religious sentiment. Emma Goldman wrote in Anarchism: What It Really Stands For:

Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society. Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails.

“Universal Ethicist”

Ethical atheism: heavily involved and utilizes ethical thought and standards to navigate atheism or the humanism that is likely to follow such an ethical awareness. Ethical atheism strives to utilize the strong force of ethics and ethical challenge to address the many issues that not only arise in combating the fanatical promotion of harmful myths but ethical ways to positively navigate all of life’s real struggles or options to behave in interactions with others. God claims all totally lack a standard of meeting any warrant or justification in their burden of proof, thus the claim as offered debunks itself as any kind of viable claim. 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 certain beliefs are epistemically unfounded which compels belief-relinquishment due to the beliefs insufficient supporting reason and evidence, realizing that belief. To me, belief in gods is intellectually flawed and dishonest compared to the evidence of the natural world being not only explainable on every level as only natural, but also there is not a shred of anything supernatural and every claim tested ever has time and again debunked such nonsense. If anything supernatural or paranormal was provable, the believers would have taken James Randi’s famous million-dollar challenge, or they would have gone and got their Nobel Prize in proving the supernatural or open up a 100% faith-based prayer and miracles hospital. Where the cure for anything and everything is guaranteed because “prayer and miracles works” and the only education was being a religious or spiritual leader. Prove it or it is not really worthy for true belief and if there was actual scientific proof it would silence us rationalists, atheists, and skeptics forever.

However, nothing of the sort has ever happened. List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal or supernatural woo-woo go back to at least 1922 with Scientific American. But it did not stop there instead there has been many individuals and groups have offered similar monetary awards for proof of the paranormal or supernatural with some reaching over a million dollars yet as of February 2016, not one prizes have been claimed. Therefore, belief in supernatural or paranormal are not realistic nor are they reasonable. And what’s even crazier is it’s nonsense and they act like it is us rationalists, atheists, and skeptics that have to disprove something they have never proved. I do think 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. 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. Ethics of Belief: sufficient evidence to support belief.

An honest thinker would want to know what is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity to support belief. According to the legal decision in 1950, evidence is sufficient when it satisfies an unprejudiced mind. Sufficient evidence can be said to reference the evidence of such value as to support the belief. The word sufficient does not mean conclusive. Conclusive evidence is evidence that serves to establish a fact or the proven truth of something. To me, the test for belief analysis in relation to the offered evidence attempting to affirm the belief, would be is it sufficient evidence such as, could any rational addresser of the belief in question to find the essential elements of the issue sufficiency evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. it is reasonable to require a greater level of evidence proportional to the importance of the belief or the external effects of the belief. – IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LUCILLE CRUSON STATE LAND BOARD V. LONG, ADM’R, ET AL. OREGON SUPREME COURT. ARGUED JUNE 13, 1950 REVERSED AUGUST 29, 1950 *538538 APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, LINN COUNTY, VICTOR OLLIVER, JUDGE. Someone asked why would a critical thinker follow another old book from 1877? Well, the age of evidence or thinking is relevant if it is reasonable. Saying it’s age is old is not a refutation of its arguments. 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 busses, 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 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Defend your atheist Ethical character?

For court if you feel obligated to “defend your atheist character” as not being religious to many implies something somehow unethical, you could say, I am an atheist but my religion style, though I don’t have one, would be closest considered or connected to humanism or secular humanism more specifically, alternatively you can say as for a type of religious persuasion, though I don’t have one, would be closest considered or connected to how I am an ethical humanist, a universal ethicist or just ethicist. Sometimes we have to talk in a language they may understand. Leviticus justice? I think not….. Often the verse, “man has sexual relations with a man They are to be put to death.” ( Leviticus 20:13) a law we shod follow? Well if you are going to you must follow the others right? Leviticus 20: 9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” Leviticus 20: 10 “‘who commits adultery is to be put to death.” Leviticus 20: 12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. Leviticus 20: 14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, Both he and they must be burned in the fire. Leviticus 20: 18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.” Leviticus 20: 20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, they will die childless.” -Crazy to think god stops childbirths. But how, when 5% of births are the result of incest USA?… such a joke. Lol Leviticus 20: 21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, They will be childless. -Another lie about limiting childbirth. But “‘If a man marries his sister, They are to be publicly removed from their people. Leviticus 20: 17.

Fight to End Abuse and Injustice.

When I was young and I saw people abused or treated unjustly, I was manly happy it was not me. But as I developed my humanity, I started to thoroughly despise abuse and injustice universally, wishing all abuse and injustice would end. I started to be vocal and compiled through my compassion to join the fight to end abuse and injustice. So. now that I have positively changed, I want to promote all the positive pro-social relating and kindness between all people I can; with a hope that they to will join to fight with me to help put an end abuse and injustice for everyone. Let justice and kindness reign, are you with me?

Ethics not god.

Gods at best are unknown, thus, are irrelevant, so just say NO to divine c;aimed morals. And to humanity, which we do know, and its human derived ethics, just say YES. Treating Others Equal as Humans is a Pro-social Behavior. All people are of worth and equal as humans. I see all humans as equal because equal is a positive prosocial behavior and a value status not a physical state of being thus all can be equal. We as humanity must work together as one people and one human race. We can no longer sit back and watch the world burn. We are accountable for the world staying the same thus leading to extended suffering, or change the world to start alleviating suffering. For too long we have gotten comfortable with eyes of hate, which only seem to find victims, instead of eyes of love, helping us find friends. I am not calling for fighting for a political party; I am trying to inspire humanitarian flourishing not limited to even a country. As I wish to look to the big picture, that we are all global citizens, and I say it’s time we start acting like it. I, as others, promise to strive to help be the change so needed in this world. Will you join us?

“Realist”

A Different Kind of Atheist:

Axiological, Methodological, Anarchist, Universal Ethicist, Realist, and Rationalist

Marquis Amon -“Reality is a maze that we move through in life, the ultimate goal is to fully understand reality as it is. That’s the end. We may go extinct before then, however, we can strive for it. We can only do this through truth navigation. Falsehoods that are intentional are effectively choosing to go to a dead end. That’s unproductive, right? Right. Logic is a mechanism that we can use to reason, this is a part of the pragmatic theory (internal hypothesis). So we create ideas using deductions based on sound thinking. Epistemology is the study or pursuit of knowledge. Ontology consists of things we know in reality. Axiology tells us why they are important. This methodology using these philosophical sciences together allows us to test our hypothesis externally(in reality). We can only use this effectively through scientific means, for accuracy and consistency. Hence the tools of truth navigation.”

If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights.

If the only rights you fight for are your own, then you have a lot to learn about the value of rights. Childhood Indoctrination is often the gateway drug, to a life of irrational magical thinking superstitions, like ghosts, gods, or guardian spirits.

The Mental Parasite Called God?

God is not simply a myth, it a mental parasite feeding off your life, is like a mental prison concept, disemboweling you, and any religion that supports the concept of god(s), becomes like a controlling jailer to the mind of the god believer. What is love, if it is so cheap, that it is for wholesale to myths? To me, it is truly a sad thing, when you have people offer more love to an unknown and at best unproven thing they call god; not even evident in this world, over real people, even loved ones, which are known in this world. Sadly, all too often a mind full of god(s) myths have no appetite for reason.I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three-letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)!

It seems, in general, the less education and higher poverty have a higher correlation to being religious.

I am an Axiological Atheist, with a Rationalist Persuasion, who Supports Anarcho-Humanism

“I often find that the quality of a person is written in their thinking and behavior.”

Atheist Anarchists Discussion

My poor grammar, spelling, or math?

I am quite intelligent, yet some wonder why I am so bad at rudimentary education like my poor grammar, spelling or math, its largely due to two factors being raised in a fanatical religious cult, that was almost completely shut off from the world (no Music, TV, or outside things, EtC) extreme intellectual/educational abuse and extreme child abuse; Physical abuse (sexual abuse to hitting, spanking, beating, lack of food, lack of shelter, lack of clothing, medical neglect to go with the general neglect), psychological abuse, disrupting my life.

May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe.

Don’t give up, think of all the people who you get to prove wrong with your success. My thinking is strong like a bomb, deep like the ocean, and creatively imaginative as if a star shining brightly.

“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…

It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.

Quick Evolution of Religion?

So, it all starts in a general way with Animism (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development).

Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.

Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.

Again, it simple:

Atheism is the reality position.

Theism is the anti-reality position!

I don’t need religion or its fake gods.

“Reason is my only master.”

I am will to power!

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

So, I think, right thinking is reason.

Right (sound) reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naive realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

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

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability.

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

“Damien, I have a question: Who/what gives humans value?”

I am the “one” you have been waiting for I am will to power, a deep thought so true it has taken flight to the lofty aspirations dreamed for and a care transmitted to offer hope to humanity I believe in you and will strive to champion you with all I have for you are so worthy…

Caring Firebrand Atheist Activism

Protest theocratic theism and its Impacting oppression on atheist Human Rights. The eyes of the world predicted my failure but here I am, I am a survivor, No longer do I hide my face, I no longer fear a fall from your grace for I find my courage plain as day in the human race, may I be a good human. May I put truth above all and valiantly thrust a crusade or truth and caring, which will help show love can and will in the end if only in my black heart so often close to that deadman’s plank. I am a fighter, I don’t need you to save me, I don’t need your empty claims of magic in the world, a stumbling block to many, yet, I am no longer one of them, I am will to power. Say the truth plainly don’t allow pretend but do so with a caring desire to teach as one would to a friend. May I be a caring firebrand atheist. One, with an awakened humanity fully alive in my humanist heart, Desiring to Demonstrate my humanitarianism as I fully stand up for truth as a reality as well as kindness as all reality revolutionaries should, strongly speaking what is right as the truth is not pretended. I am bound by the limitations we all face but may I bravely be a good human past it all…

I am trying to make everything a little easier, but I have doctorate level thinking and I get that is a lot for some.

May we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

More than just atheists I hope my thinking inspires people to be rationalists who strive to use critical thinking putting reason at the forefront thus as their only master even over their ego. As well as from such thoughtfulness may we all see the need for humanism and secularism, respecting all as helpful servant leaders assisting other as often as we can to navigate truth and the beauty of reality. I strive to be and wish for others to be more than just atheists, may we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

Aron Ra interviewing me on my “Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”

My thinking on the Evolution of Religion

I always like to openly address my thinking, so no one has to guess my thinking. Here is my thinking, on the evolution of religion both a thing or possess that the elements or themes of religion to me most likely were formed, spread, remade, spread and remade some more repeat, and repeat, and so on. But I want to make it clear these are my reasoned speculations of what I believe the evidence and reasonable points of conjecture or inference put together helps explain the formation of religion in human prehistory to history. I also wish to address that somethings I am epistemically certain mean ABC.

Others, I think are the most likely of with the best of a few elements or most quality that fits what can be known or reasoned. It could also involve explaining the best thinking relating to what it seems the evidence could be suggesting. Thus, the beast even a few somewhat similar possibilities than even less I have things that I only am sure but the evidence seems to employ, that to me, I thought just explain it as one loose reference whole of the course of religion total thus looking far above seeing it all played out like a family tree. I am taking on the entire institution all over the world throughout all time so forgive me if I have to shorten it down to one book not bigger than one could hold. My goal is always the truth. This will not change if later I am shown as wrong in some lines of thinking. I desire it to truly know. And as my goal is not focusing on one religion, nor one country, nor one region, nor any limited expanse of space or time that could relate to the evolution. I looked from before stone tools to Jesus and the bible and beyond.

I see the need to impressing on you that all this no matter the religion is interesting as mythology but most hold a deep potential to inspire justify harm as easy as some seem able to use it to help and other love their flawed reality scrip religions which I say believe as you want but beliefs have ethical consequences but the behaviors they are likely to inspire.I wish to offer what is worth to help others in our fight as reality-revolutionaries as atheists. Someone has to stick up for reality and I proudly accept the job. I am not saying religions can’t be fun as a social event or add people in faking their way through but in our law decisions or altering any humanitarian effort to help all in need. So, while religion, in general, could potentially be fun as movie plots I dislike hearing mythology misclassified as something reasonable as if it is even comparable to today’s science. We as a society should stand strong from such threats to our shared humanity.

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism

I am going to roughly offer the understanding how axiological thinking interacts with differing theological beliefs.

Axiological theism: is the thinking a god(s) or goddess(es) are real as well as valuable and we are enriched (all value, truth, morality are deity involved) because there is such a being(s) and we should worship it and would be worse off if such a being(s) did not exist (life would have no meaning, worth or value and there would be no way to judge morality)

Axiological agnosticism: is the thinking I do not know if a such being as god(s) or goddess(es) exist neither can we evaluate the value and we thus lack the basis to value judge what benefits or harm they may encompass and such would probably not worship such a being(s) as we do not know if we should or should not. Likewise, we cannot form an opinion as to if we are better or worse if such a being(s) existed.

Axiological atheism: is the thinking that no god(s) or goddess(es) exist and they lack all worth and value to humans even if they existed. Such myth should be rejected in favor of believing in humanity, seeing secularism and humanism as a kind of “higher absolute” such as humanity, formal axiology, or naturalistic or universal ethical principles. My stating a kind of “higher absolute” is not stating a belief n some absolute morality instead it is meaning nothing but naturalistic human-centered morality is used or form of valued good is derived from a rational thinking by humanity (Ie. humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to god myths or religious philosophies). Axiological atheism would tend to value Formal Axiology (Scientific Axiology/Scientific Value Theory) takes a realistic, or fact-based, view of the world when assessing or understanding value/good/worth. Formal axiology understands that people have and act upon values. Scientific axiologists will seek to understand what those values are, and to analyze their structure. That empirical orientation is why scientific axiology can serve as the formal side of the yet to be developed value sciences. To illustrate this value realism, suppose a theist states they love god(s). Since the science of value has an empirical orientation, a value scientist would see the theistic belief in god(s) not as some actual existing being, instead, understand it as a conception in the mind of theist, not anything realistic or fact-based. Axiological Atheism is like humanistic anti-theism and anti-religionism with strong secularism.

Moreover, an axiological atheist could be thought of as thinking no gods no masters and thus would never worship a god or any being especially if it was by threat, force or the act of coercing to any extent. An axiological atheist may even question if any being is worthy of the title god or be ignostic that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god and see this as extending to other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin, and the soul. Thus regarding that as ridiculous and not worthy at all and should be shown Ridicule and Disdain. Therefore as you can guess they would say we are better off that no god(s) or goddess(es) existed and it would be much worse if they did.

axiological attitudes toward God’s existence are axiological theism (thinking God’s existence to be a good thing), axiological atheism (thinking God’s existence to be a bad thing), and axiological agnosticism (indifference toward God’s existence). Issues in the Philosophy of Religion an axiological approach.

Axiology/Axiological Thinking (value theory judgments)?

“Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, “value, worth”; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics, philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902, and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908. Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of “right” and “good” in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of “beauty” and “harmony.” Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman’s science of value.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

Axiology as Philosophy

“Axiology, (from Greek axios, “worthy”; logos, “science”), also called THEORY OF VALUE, the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. Its significance lies (1) in the considerable expansion that it has given to the meaning of the term value and (2) 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.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology

“The term “value” originally meant the worth of something, chiefly in the economic sense of exchange value, as in the work of the 18th-century political economist Adam Smith. A broad extension of the meaning of value to wider areas of philosophical interest occurred during the 19th century under the influence of a variety of thinkers and schools: the Neo-Kantians Rudolf Hermann Lotze and Albrecht Ritschl; Friedrich Nietzsche, author of a theory of the transvaluation of all values; Alexius Meinong and Christian von Ehrenfels; and Eduard von Hartmann, philosopher of the unconscious, whose Grundriss der Axiologie (1909; “Outline of Axiology”) first used the term in a title. Hugo Münsterberg, often regarded as the founder of applied psychology, and Wilbur Marshall Urban, whose Valuation, Its Nature and Laws (1909) was the first treatise on this topic in English, introduced the movement to the United States. Ralph Barton Perry’s book General Theory of Value (1926) has been called the magnum opus of the new approach. A value, he theorized, is “any object of any interest.” Later, he explored eight “realms” of value: morality, religion, art, science, economics, politics, law, and custom.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology

“A distinction is commonly made between instrumental and intrinsic value—between what is good as a means and what is good as an end. John Dewey, in Human Nature and Conduct (1922) and Theory of Valuation (1939), presented a pragmatic interpretation and tried to break down this distinction between means and ends, though the latter effort was more likely a way of emphasizing the point that many actual things in human life—such as health, knowledge, and virtue—are good in both senses. Other philosophers, such as C.I. Lewis, Georg Henrik von Wright, and W.K. Frankena, have multiplied the distinctions—differentiating, for example, between instrumental value (being good for some purpose) and technical value (being good at doing something) or between contributory value (being good as part of a whole) and final value (being good as a whole).” https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology

“Many different answers are given to the question “What is intrinsically good?” Hedonists say it is pleasure; Pragmatists, satisfaction, growth, or adjustment; Kantians, a good will; Humanists, harmonious self-realization; Christians, the love of God. Pluralists, such as G.E. Moore, W.D. Ross, Max Scheler, and Ralph Barton Perry, argue that there are any number of intrinsically good things. Moore, a founding father of Analytic philosophy, developed a theory of organic wholes, holding that the value of an aggregate of things depends upon how they are combined. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of value and of value judgments. Whereas such descriptive sciences as sociology, psychology, anthropology, and comparative religion all attempt to give a factual description of what is actually valued, as well as causal explanations of similarities and differences between the valuations, it remains the philosopher’s task to ask about their objective validity. The philosopher asks whether something is of value because it is desired, as subjectivists such as Perry hold, or whether it is desired because it has value, as objectivists such as Moore and Nicolai Hartmann claim. In both approaches, value judgments are assumed to have a cognitive status, and the approaches differ only on whether a value exists as a property of something independently of human interest in it or desire for it. Noncognitivists, on the other hand, deny the cognitive status of value judgments, holding that their main function is either emotive, as the positivist A.J. Ayer maintains, or prescriptive, as the analyst R.M. Hare holds. Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, emphasizing freedom, decision, and choice of one’s values, also appear to reject any logical or ontological connection between value and fact.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/axiology

“Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies judgements about the value. Specifically, axiology is engaged with assessment of the role of researcher’s own value on all stages of the research process. Axiology primarily refers to the ‘aims’ of the research. This branch of the research philosophy attempts to clarify if you are trying to explain or predict the world, or are you only seeking to understand it. In simple terms, axiology focuses on what do you value in your research. This is important because your values affect how you conduct your research and what do you value in your research findings. The table below illustrates the axiology of major research philosophies and highlights relevant methods of data collection. Axiology of research philosophies and relevant data collection techniques. When discussing axiology aspect of the research philosophy in your qualitative research, you need to make your values known in the study and reports your values and biases as well as the value-laden nature of information gathered from the field.” ref

The Axiology of Knowing: Others, the World, and Oneself?

Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Others and the World:

1. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: value who others and the world are.

2. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: what value others and the world have.

3. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: other-definition / world-definition and expectations.

Axiology (theory of value) Knowing Oneself:

4. INTRINSICALLY = empathy thinking: inner self-value who I am.

5. EXTRINSICALLY = practical thinking: outer value what I am to others and the world.

6. SYSTEMICALLY = structured thinking: self-definition and expectations.

Smith, B. (2011). Axiology for human behavior professionals. Dallas, TX: Clear Direction.

Applying Axiological Thinking:

Dr. Hartman identified three dimensions of reality, which he called the Dimensions of Value. We value everything in one of these three ways or in a combination of these dimensions. The Dimensions of Value are systemic, extrinsic, and intrinsic.

People: Intrinsic
Mostly Intuitive thinking

Systems: systemic
Mostly conceptual thinking

Tasks: extrinsic
Mostly pragmatic thinking http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/dimensions.asp

Even the religious acknowledge, axiology?

“Got Questions (Bible) Ministries Question: “What is axiology?”

“Answer: Axiology is the study of values and how those values come about in a society. Axiology seeks to understand the nature of values and value judgments. It is closely related to two other realms of philosophy: ethics and aesthetics. All three branches deal with worth. Ethics is concerned with goodness, trying to understand what good is and what it means to be good. Aesthetics is concerned with beauty and harmony, trying to understand beauty and what it means or how it is defined. Axiology is a necessary component of both ethics and aesthetics, because one must use concepts of worth to define “goodness” or “beauty,” and therefore one must understand what is valuable and why. Understanding values helps us to determine motive. When children ask questions like “why do we do this?” or “how come?” they are asking axiological questions. They want to know what it is that motivates us to take action or refrain from action. The parent says not to take a cookie from the jar. The child wonders why taking a cookie from the jar is wrong and argues with the parent. The parent often tires of trying to explain and simply replies, “Because I said so.” The child will stop arguing if he values the established authority (or if he fears the punishment of disobeying). On the other hand, the child may stop arguing simply because he respects his parent. In this example, the value is either authority or respect, depending on the values of the child. Axiology asks, “Where did these values come from? Can either of these values be called good? Is one better than another? Why?” Innate to humanity is the desire for self-preservation and self-continuance. Like the animals, humans seek out food and shelter, and they desire reproduction. But there is another set of things we seek: truth, beauty, love. These are different needs, different values that the animal kingdom does not concern itself with.” https://www.gotquestions.org/axiology.html

Intrinsic value (ethics/axiology base value)

“In ethics, intrinsic value is a property of anything which is valuable on its own. Intrinsic value is contrasted with instrumental value (also known as extrinsic value), which is a property of anything which derives its value from a relation to something else which is intrinsically valuable. Intrinsic value is always something that an object has “in itself” or “for its own sake”, and is an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end, or in Kantian terminology, as an end-in-itself.” “The term “intrinsic value” is employed in axiology, the branch of philosophy which studies value (including both ethics and aesthetics). All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable. For instance, for an virtue ethicist, eudaimonia (human flourishing, sometimes translated as “happiness”) has intrinsic value, whereas things that bring you happiness (such as having a family) may be merely instrumentally valuable. Similarly, consequentialists may identify pleasure, the lack of pain, and/or the fulfillment of one’s preferences as having intrinsic value, making actions that produce them merely instrumentally value. On the other hand, proponents of deontological ethics argue that morally right actions (namely, those which respect our moral duty to others) are always intrinsically valuable, regardless of their consequences. Other names for intrinsic value are terminal value, essential value, principle value, or ultimate importance.” ref

My general thinking in relation to my Axiology assumptions:

Intrinsic Value:

(such as human rights, or dignity respect)

Extrinsic Value:

(such as relating to its accuracy, truth, quality, what value that is produced, Its use-value, or an added level of its agreeableness or desirability to it)

Systemic Value:

“True morality is not as simple as the golden rule”

True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others.

I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.

Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal.

I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals, and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals, and ethics) or the main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals, and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way, should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviors.

Such as a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you do not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics.

Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).

Science is my reliance and reason is my support! And as an out caring firebrand atheist, I am for non-aggression and pro-social behaviors. I just want to be the best I can be, in my one life, making all the positive difference I can while alive.

Axiological Valuation of Goodness

I made this to help others understand how axiology can be applied as I see it.

To learn more about Formal Axiology check out this link: Formal_Axiology_Another_Victim_in_Religions_War_on_Science

Axiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument-driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism. As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoned antitheism & antireligionism is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.

You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science, and personal experience which too are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy, and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value-driven life lived in this reality.

What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling?

Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness. Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture.

When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning.

Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles, we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way.

Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of the neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy. Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function.

Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings.

Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative).

The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value:

1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations
2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible)
3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles)

The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors.

1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas”

2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.

The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying the science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on a rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

Tenets of Secular Ethics

Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:

• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form.
Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.

The problems of axiology fall into four main groups, namely, those concerning (1) the nature of value, (2) the types of value, (3) the criterion of value, and (4) the metaphysical status of value.

(1) The nature of value experience. Is valuation fulfillment of desire (voluntarism: Spinoza, Ehrenfels), pleasure (hedonism: Epicurus, Bentham, Meinong), interest (Perry), preference (Martineau), pure rational will (formalism: Stoics, Kant, Royce), apprehension of tertiary qualities (Santayana), synoptic experience of the unity of personality (personalism: T. H. Green, Bowne), any experience that contributes to enhanced life (evolutionism: Nietzsche), or “the relation of things as means to the end or consequence actually reached” (pragmatism, instrumentalism: Dewey).

(2) The types of value. Most axiologists distinguish between intrinsic (consummatory) values (ends), prized for their own sake, and instrumental (contributory) values (means), which are causes (whether as economic goods or as natural events) of intrinsic values. Most intrinsic values are also instrumental to further value experience; some instrumental values are neutral or even disvalued intrinsically. A few recognized as intrinsic values are the (morally) good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy. Values of play, of work, of association, and of bodily well-being are also acknowledged. Some (with Montague) question whether the true is properly to be regarded as a value, since some truth is disvalued, some neutral; but love of truth, regardless of consequences, seems to establish the value of truth. There is disagreement about whether the holy (religious value) is a unique type (Schleiermacher, Otto), or an attitude toward other values (Kant, Höffding), or a combination of the two (Hocking). There is also disagreement about whether the variety of values is irreducible (pluralism) or whether all values are rationally related in a hierarchy or system (Plato, Hegel, Sorley), in which values interpenetrate or coalesce into a total experience.

(3) The criterion of value. The standard for testing values is influenced by both psychological and logical theory. Hedonists find the standard in the quantity of pleasure derived by the individual (Aristippus) or society (Bentham). Intuitionists appeal to an ultimate insight into preference (Martineau, Brentano). Some idealists recognize an objective system of rational norms or ideals as criterion (Plato, Windelband), while others lay more stress on rational wholeness and coherence (Hegel, Bosanquet, Paton) or inclusiveness (T. H. Green). Naturalists find biological survival or adjustment (Dewey) to be the standard. Despite differences, there is much in common in the results of the application of these criteria.

(4) The metaphysical status of value. What is the relation of values to the facts investigated by natural science (Koehler), of Sein to Sollen (Lotze, Rickert), of human experience of value to reality independent of man (Hegel, Pringle-Pattlson, Spaulding)? There are three main answers: subjectivism (value is entirely dependent on and relative to human experience of it: so most hedonists, naturalists, positivists); logical objectivism (values are logical essences or subsistences, independent of their being known, yet with no existential status or action in reality); metaphysical objectivism (values — or norms or ideals — are integral, objective, and active constituents of the metaphysically real: so theists, absolutists, and certain realists and naturalists like S. Alexander and Wieman).

Axiological atheism can be seen as antitheist and takes a very strong unsympathetic line by saying no being, of any sort, is worthy of the name of god and demanding worship a “moral obligation,” to his values alone which demonstrates an axiological disapproval of their value to be worshipped. No being deserves to be god because they have not provided irrefutable proof nor have done anything to prove separation from the natural world which all beings are part of.

Morality is a biological adaptation. It is likewise natural as fully detailed in the book “The Moral Lives of Animals” where morality or ethical conscience is an evolutionary persuasion seen in how wild elephants walking along a trail stop and spontaneously try to protect and assist a weak and dying fellow elephant. As well as in how laboratory rats, finding other rats caged nearby in distressing circumstances, proceed to rescue them. A chimpanzee in a zoo loses his own life trying to save an unrelated infant who has fallen into a watery moat. The examples above and many others, show that our fellow creatures have powerful impulses toward cooperation, generosity, and fairness. Yet, it is commonly held that we Homo sapiens are the only animals with a moral sense. This rigorous challenges that notion and shows the profound connections—the moral continuum—that link humans to many other species. Understanding the moral lives of animals offers new insight into our own.
Since the god concept in axiological atheism can only be likewise conceived as natural, it deserves no more value than a tree, human, or a black hole, if it was true. If the god concept is outside of nature, it has demonstrated no relevance or worth to the obviously natural world. If the god concept was outside of nature but found relevant over nature, it would be shown to be either willfully guilty for allowing harm or the direct creation of the harm. If the god concept was demonstrated as outsider to the natural world with no ability to manage harm in every stance, it would thus be valueless and undesirable to be given praise and actually shown contempt.

Beyond simply taking the stance that we know, as Atheists, gods do not exist; axiological atheism further strives from just evolution and shows that a creator and designer are not needed to explain life. Axiological atheism ethically critique, value judge analyze, and attack anything that we might be missing out on to remove belief that a god real or concept would be something of value seeing gods as oppressive moral monsters. Axiological atheism can also be seen as a form of antitheist and anti-religionist viewing the negative axiological difference that goddess/gods or religion’s existence makes in a world. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of axiological value and of value judgments understands “Axiological atheism” as axiological protest to existence of gods or supreme beings.

Axiological atheism is anti-theist challenging the slandered thinking that god gives or has morality or is a moral being, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing. Axiological atheism is anti-religionist challenging the slandered thinking that religion gives or has morality, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing.

Axiological atheism is a branch of atheism that is also called constructive atheism: looks to science, humanity, and nature as the only viable source of ethics, morals, and values. These axiological atheists say that humans know what is morally right or wrong, inherently due to evolution which can also be seen in lesser forms of animal life with cognitive abilities demonstrating the rational rejection that its existence is only attributed to the myths of gods or supreme beings creation. Axiological atheism value view goes beyond Nietzsche’s comment that “god is dead” with the ethical opinion that god deserved to die.
Therefore, axiological atheism’s stance on a being in most faiths and the actions claimed of the imaginary being can be attributed to such atrocities, unfairness, injustices, and selfish/self-serving distortion of values. If there were such beings as gods, they are deserving of a life sentence in prison, the death penalty, or at least to be rebuked and shunned as an anti-humanist.

Axiological atheism holds judgmental axiological attitudes towards the existence of gods if there was even such myths, that is to say between an interest in grounds for positioning the existence of god or a god concept as harmful and desires to expose the negative orientations or evaluative reason for believing in god and religion and why they should have no value but do deserve distain. For some unbelievers, an axiological atheism stance would be a drastic position because it sees little necessity of disproving a god’s existence. However, sees no value in a god at all, even if one was true, and devalues the concept so fully that the preference would be that it be non-existent. If one was found to be real, and would wish to do away with the very flawed god concept altogether to remove its harm to humanity.

Axiological atheism makes sense mainly on the assumption that believers have a distorted or inadequate concept of god and the violations to a just caring ethical humanity such a concept would be. Axiological atheist inquiry focuses on what a person values, finds desirable, or concern themselves with how a god is wrongly perceived or conceived as positive. Axiology to the philosophy of disbelief asks whether the existence of god (conceived in a particular way) would be a good or a bad thing, welcome or unwelcome. The axiological attitudes toward a god’s existence such as axiological atheism that thinks a god’s existence to be a very bad thing and axiological agnosticism is the indifference toward a god’s existence.

I used a few references for the info above I have linked this blog post: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/05/applying-axiological-thinking/

And let’s not forget to mention, I don’t want to be mistaken as a Trump supporter. They don’t seem to be big on science…

Whatever you think, I have done, I still have done more. lol

Some Die?

People have often not like my hardest Atheism activism. I do it anyway. I got death threats and I have never changed anything. I often am told I am just, too much. Well, to me, the world is totally fucked as if reason means little to nothing and we need hardcore change. Not straining one’s collar, no, rather buying an entirely new wardrobe. We are smeared with the darkness of the mind and the heart. I cry at how much need there truly is and yet it is met with, silence? I will not be silent to injustice, cruelty, oppression, or unethical bigotry against my fellow members of humanity.

I am an atheist activist as this is not my life alone because we all share this life together. We will rise as one or destroy ourselves in unkindness. I for one not only speak loudly I chouse not to carry a big stick instead I want to offer helping hands. I war with ignorance and unreason, not really the people holding them. My hope is for people’s empowerment, I want you to think more not trying to force anyone to think like me if they don’t see “good” reason.

I will likely be murdered for it by some nut but the need is too great to not risk everything, peoples lives have always been on the line! Sadly, it seems some will always have to die before real change happens, and this is just how bad the world truly is…

Some, may Die!

…The real Question is, how many, have to die, before people start to understand, we all must fight as one?

We all have a role to protect the future for students.

We must #UniteToProtect education from attacks.

Kindness to Persuade?

I have won people over more, to the beauty of reason, by my kindness, than I ever did with my anger or aggressive attitude. So, be kind and show others the way…

America has time and again deeply broken trust with non-white people, non-males, non-heteronormative, non-trans, non-intersex, etc. in their eyes…

I am trying to inspire others to be the change and make the difference to humanity we all need.

10429276_656913247785526_9111691408152101041_n

68296970_1753262501483923_3981061180151037952_n

68751968_1753262018150638_4051913498991525888_n

12373402_832896966818691_2550465602671829384_n

15585098_1021057168037797_2959579229212905811_o-1

12687847_826031067540409_4659955025434868048_n

12715357_826033240873525_7946457214087401359_n

14237505_950040305139484_3560854628549001108_n

12651355_826031237540392_7601748774464767277_n - Copy

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

14199673_1675180409475895_3031686239192009136_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12694556_826031104207072_4328387558183045_o

1412557_826037094206473_6516164375978781851_o - Copy

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

12191799_782519035224946_4915285643337324227_n

49797502_2223995637927700_2986441810613633024_n

49771520_592379507841830_8340537875619643392_n

18057749_1107701226040057_3888247909487251889_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

118528664_2167394813404021_6835894371251789746_n

102803419_2084656041677899_3524152687330866918_n

118766056_2174801812663321_28749076966668352_o

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

12063855_782519025224947_309322912680961088_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12671626_826033064206876_8054780334846426777_o

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12694593_826030924207090_1547073526163079209_o (1)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

10996002_681176385359212_6319713345921041975_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12647045_826031324207050_6048273725793611518_n - Copy

12512566_826030917540424_7438317511779180733_n (1) - Copy - Copy

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12697232_826033104206872_145382396920042959_o

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

12694958_826033247540191_1982788986803960728_o

12695029_826031360873713_2420723173182573001_o

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

17545156_1089505094526337_2539018640815198482_o-Copy

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

50626195_2231791236887767_8408273929398910976_n

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

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

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago.

Gods?

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.

“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.

“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.

Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

11406234_754565204651868_2328529661034816546_o

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

Banned from Facebook, due to my Radical out Atheist and Political Activism

LinkedIn and Instagram as well as Facebook all permanently Banned me.

From my direct email:

Here are a few of what I see as “Animist only” Cultures:

Atheist-Humanist Philosopher & Pre-Historical Writer/Researcher at damien.marie.athope.com

I am Unruly?

We rise by helping each other.

Alternate names:

Fallacy fallacy fallacy?

Fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy?

Inverse fallacy fallacy?

Fallacy misidentification?

Legitimate similar arguments?

Examples?

Prevalence?

Lesson One

No Philosopher, I?

Hi, fuck the noise, you called god, Silence!

Yes, you actually are an Animist type of religionist.

May I Help be the Voice of Reason

Here is a comment to this from a Fan and Friend:

“Do Epic Shit”

(((Content Warning, I talk real about some of my abuse)))

Father is an “F” word

HAVE WE NO DECENCY: IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE DINGELL

“I think I may be a kindness-radical.”

“I love seeing long-oppressed people rise.”

Stupid Radicals?

I know I hold deep compassion for them, as I was them a theist until 35 years old in college, then realized the conclusion of atheism. Before that, I had started school to become a Christian counselor for alcohol and drug addiction, and during that learning, mainly I realized the truth of atheism.

Having Bias-Blindness is easy as biases happen without even trying, however, the removing or overcoming of bias takes a lot of deliberate work. The hard work one puts into self-improvement is a lifetime gift to their wellbeing and likely that of others around them as well.

We rise by helping each other.

Courtney Lawrence “Archaeologist” –

“We also have to remember everyone shows support a little differently. Additionally, people can be kind of horrible at showing that

they care. It doesn’t mean that they don’t care. Rather, usually they are so busy dealing with so many other things in their lives. We

are all constantly juggling (metaphorically), and this pandemic adds further stress to everyone.”

I am will to power!

I am trying to make everything a little easier, but I have doctorate level thinking and I get that is a lot for some.

My general thinking in relation to my Axiology assumptions:

Axiological Valuation of Goodness

Some Die?

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

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

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest