Atheist Addressing Agnostic Errors

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Axiological Atheist Addressing Agnostic Errors

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

Atheist Addressing Agnostic Errors:

• You can’t prove a negative.
• Logical internal evidence is not real evidence if not related to or with external confirmed evidence.
• There is no absolute certainty thus there is no certainty.
• Rejection of beliefs without evidence is the same as beliefs without evidence.
• The only logical choice is agnosticism in the god question.
• You must choose either agnostic (claim of unsureness to believe or reject, professed lack of evidence to believe or disbelieve) or gnostic (claim of sureness to reject or believe, professed belief in evidence to believe or disbelieve) in the god question. 

I see you, “Religion”, resisting needed correction, to your unscientific supernatural theorizing. And thanks for having our backs, Science. By Science being willing to address needed changes relational to the most valid and reliable reason and evidence. A failed burden of proof is the god-talk’s most unaddressed part. You cannot prove one thing about the term god other than people choosing to believe it has any meaning at all. Theists don’t even universally agree to even begin to make gods probable. There is no absolute certainty in philosophy, there is only “psychological certainty” what one believes, or “epistemic” certainty, meaning what evidence represents or relates to. There is no evidence of God anything, thus one can be epistemically certain that all “god-something” claims fail. Theism is belief in a god or gods. “Active choice” belief. A-theism is not having a belief in a god or gods, this is true if one never heard stories of gods, not choosing atheism/being unsure, or making the choice to not believe is a kind/style of atheism.

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice? Do you not see how cursive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them.

Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion! We are all travelers of humanity set adrift on a global ship, the Earth. We have a chance of greatness if only we can act as if humanity has a connecting value, one not lost simply because of different plots of earth we may reside or what hope we can sustain. Morality: “What is right/good/just action.” Morals (personal choice inner-self mortality thinking). Ethics (others responsible for inner-relational mortality behaviors).

I don’t believe in the supernatural notion of a “soul,” especially with our natural only evolution. Undesigned natural processes of evolution made us believing-machines. I am not an animist, thus I don’t believe in souls or spirits. How can I? When in our natural only evolution add magical anything? I can’t buy anything but natural, thus I can be labeled a Metaphysical naturalist (also called ontological naturalist, philosophical naturalist, and anti-supernaturalist). I see religions as conspiracy theories of reality just like their proposed god-something beliefs. These “Conspiracy Theories” are a hell of a drug, seeming to easily push out all sound reason and critical thinking, if it contradicts their chosen conspiracy theories beliefs. I use the Animism term as a definition of spirit-beliefs or a kind of Supernatural-Spiritism thinking, that to me, are in all spiritual or religious type beliefs, not primitive but core, it’s a common error supporting one’s chosen conspiracy theories beliefs. I see Animism as the original religion of all humanity and is still in all the religions of the world, and their foundational error of our natural-only world actually devoid of any so-called spirits to support Animism beliefs.

“Damien, you sent me a follow request. I’m not sure about it as you have anti religion in your bio while I’m definitely religiously observant Jewish. Do you think we’ll really fit.” – Questioner 

My response, I support good people and am not a bigot. I see all religions as mythology. Others see only their religion as the “one true religion.” It is not a limitation, to have many religious people of contrary religion beliefs to be friends or work towards shared goals as humans, that are not related to religion or antireligion. Many if not most socialist movements have both religious and antireligionist people who work together in solidarity for more positive economic goals that help the working class. I am a socialist anarchist and I welcome all good humans. I once thought no one was friendly, so, I decided to start trying to be a friend to others. No one even seemed to care, so, I realized, I needed to care. No one really made “you” feel as if you mattered, so, I started valuing others, I see the world I wish to live in starts with me. After all other people are just fellow beings of dignity like me… “Hate of others” is a disgusting display of foolishness. Bigotry is the shame people smear all over themselves trying to look better than others.

Science like logic should follow truth devoid of political or religious/nonreligious beliefs or persuasions. To me, to do otherwise is to move away from science and thus risks falling into pseudoscience. To me, a valid “possibility” is not an all claims are open, rather it is inherently constrained to “the condition or fact of being possible.” We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which brings about a new caring awareness. Words matter? How many more words do I have in this life? We always act as if there is no limit but there at our passing to death, any more words are forever no more. If only given a few words, would I waste them on anger or hate? What if every word mattered, would I not want to use them to love? An “Intellectually honest mind” welcomes just correction and eagerly strives for what is true over what may be preferred.

May reason and evidence guide you. I strive to let evidence and reason guide me, thus if the status of evidence, for or against any claim, I would take it into consideration, and if soundly warranted I would amend beliefs to this changed status. Even a believed reasoned speculation could be wrong, in error someway, need some reworking, or complete relinquishment as a belief. I was thinking if we know group think can be a stronger motivator in beliefs and actions, how much blame should there be for engaging in it? Should we take into account the pressure of “group think” or say many pressures are always engaging us so all actions hold the same standard? I am not the thing abuse made and thus I champion reason and evidence to guide me. All understanding or claims of facts and Truth should be updated, amended, or changed when there is valid and reliable reason to do so. “Damien, philosophy is not science” My response, Have you ever heard of the philosophy of science? And if all philosophy was removed, science would stop happening at any advanced level.

Can a fact be changed to a non-fact? So, are science facts tentative and thus not absolute like science thinks truths or proof is? And if a fact is demonstrated to be a non-fact, is it not proven to be so, and is that now the new truth status whether or not a claim of truth is made? Many seem unaware that science involves philosophy, but most science communications don’t fully explain the philosophy in science. And even when they are somewhat explained it is likely limited and thus can add some confusion. I hear over and over again that there is no “science proof” only “science evidence or facts.” But a fact: is a thing that is known or proven to be true. Evidence: is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Some even state any science that states “proves” … etc. Can never be true because science doesn’t prove things it only tries to disprove. To me, there is so much wrong with that, I will only offer one: this argument of “disprove”, is to “prove” it is not accurate or relatable to the claim.

“God is infinity, a universe with no beginning and no end (eternity). Not an entity who only takes in nice people, Deep hey?” – Theistic Challenger  

My response, Do you have evidence of such a claim?

“Wow considering you call yourself a philosopher, you really haven’t got much of a imagination have you. ” – Theistic Challenger 

My response, So, gods are limited to our imagination? Thus, not expressed in the real world?

“Well of course not, you will be telling me man has actually walked on the moon next. ” – Theistic Challenger 

My response, So you favor more than just the conspiracy theory of reality “religion”, and other conspiracy theories, like doubting the moon landing. Do you think the earth is flat as well?

I don’t agree that debates are the same as discussions. I don’t do debates but will do discussions. I see debates as a win-lose and are about defending your side, to try and win, but in discussions, I am looking to navigate truth and thus we are both open to change. What we don’t understand we can come to fear. That which we fear may lead to hate. And what we hate we may seek to destroy. Thus, it is upon us to be open to understanding and not fall into the arms of hate and harm. Lack of humanity is a sickness of humanity. People can be so dogmatic on their own side, that anything that looks like it is not from your side it must be from your opposing side. It is the enemy of free thinking. I believe morality can be objective, but it is not what is used the most. Emotional-psychosocial-cultural (religion) motivations used to support their moral reasoning to make believed ethical decisions. One should have a belief etiquette in how they approach believing, keep believing, and letting beliefs go, or amend old beliefs, if one values Truth. I value reasoned Belief acquisitions, good Belief maintenance, and honest Belief relinquishment.

Correctability is a virtue and one of the shining examples of Correctability is a virtue and one of the shining examples why science is intellectually honest and trustable in its confirmations about facts found in reality, unlike the non-facts that faith beliefs find their home in, and which are devoid of the intellectual honesty correctability insures. God explained, you ask? Well, to simplify G.O.D. = Group Originated Delusion. Or more fully explained: “GOD”? Well, “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. Therefore, together it is common that Gods as the overarching theme equals paganism, generally to me.

I see religion as a “theme” of supernatural thinking/beliefs as a honeycomb or connected tree of branching ideas (similar to language or stone tool technology: “a cultural product”), several connected cells all influencing the others, and while they are all different cells that are all part of the whole religion phenomenon. I do not see them as old or new but a cultural product that evolved again and again from several different factors, but the majority was by transfer from cultural diffusion to others, 1. By people movements, and 2. Idea transfer is not directly connected to people moving to live but through trade and cultural interactions both positive and negative. To me, religion as a cultural phenomenon (IE: several religions or religious ideas not grouped in a fully religious context but still influenced religiously/spiritually) it is several deviations and subsections all loosely connected in many loose ways. “Reasonable” in relation to doubt or truth are the same, which is “having sound judgment; fair and sensible.” Hate and aggression are easy, you see them every day and everywhere. It makes me proud to be for non-aggression, kindness, and care as it is so needed but seldom there. We rise by helping each other.

I don’t hate theists or agnostics; I simply think they are wrong

and use/champion many thinking errors.

Weak Theism and Weak Atheism being called Agnostic?

If you require your ideas to be protected from challenge. Then are you not admitting that your ideas are vulnerable to being destroyed by a challenge?

We start not knowing and theism is an active belief state so it is after not knowing so atheism is the default, not belief. To me, disbelief also comes after not knowing or thinking about the question of beliefs. Now it is true that until 7 children do have animism “magical thinking” styles in general, magical agency could be applied to anything by them, though to be honest, that is not the same as inferring this is theism belief. I will now offer helpful but simplistic definitions of why a position of atheism could be chosen it is of course just an over-generalization but it will highlight the main idea though it always will be more substantive in reality and who is applying it.

Here is my list of non-theistic and theistic assumptions:

Nonbelief:

1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Nontheism
2. Strong implicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief similar to Apatheist
3. Weak Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Agnostic
4. Strong Explicit Atheism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists similar to Ignostic
5. Strongest Explicit Atheism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists similar to Antitheist

Belief:

6. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to Somethingism(Ietsism)/Vague Theism
7. Weak implicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief similar to apatheist theists.
8. Weak Explicit Theism “negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists similar to agnostic theism.
9. Strong Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to standard theism.
10. Strongest Explicit Theism “positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists similar to Gnostic

What is a god?

Allowing that magical thinking or the possibility of magical thinking being real is clearly not supported by any facts in reality. Thus, it is just more a social engineering “indoctrinated belief” connected to learned magical thinking supernaturalism and/or superstitionism. When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more Gods and/or Goddesses, Theists will say yes; strong Atheists will say no. Agnostics will say I don’t know or often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer but are still either classified as either Weak Theism or Weak Atheism as it’s a belief question and no matter how one tries to add or subtract other things the main issue still is, “do you believe in theism” if the answer is anything but yes or some variant of maybe yes then it’s a no; thus one is an atheist as all it takes is a lack of believing theism but it can be disbelief, even a beliefs there is no god. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism): One may ask what about just plain Agnosticism, Well there is no plain Agnosticism to me it is either some kind of weak theism or weak atheism, and thus people are labeling themselves as agnostics but actually are some kind of weak theism or weak atheism.

Weak Theism and Weak Atheism Agnostics?

*Weak Theism (Agnostic)?

Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists though I am not sure or don’t know about god(s) and/or goddess(es) at this time.

Weak Theism: Yes, a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. However, we have no possibility or certainty of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

Weak Theism: I think that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists but have no proof.

Weak Theism: I think so but cannot be positive that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists.

Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist just to be careful, perhaps because of the rewards or to stop some punishments one would receive if a god(s) and/or goddess(es) does exist.

Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and/or goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.

Weak Theism: I doubt it but cannot be sure a god(s) and/or goddess(es) doesn’t exist.

*Weak Atheism (Agnostic)?

Weak Atheism: I don’t know if a god(s) and/or goddess(es). (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life in the assumption that no god(s) and/or goddess(es) exists. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion/belief until god(s) and/or goddess(es), if one or many exist, decides to make his, her or their presence known by a strong provable indicator, which until now has ever happened. (So, they don’t believe theism thus are atheists)

Weak Atheism: The god(s) and/or goddess(es) that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional. However, who knows, I do not have certain disproof.

Feel you don’t know what god is or could be you might be an Ignostic but if so you don’t or can’t believe in theism. 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, they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

Feel you don’t care what god is or could be you might be an Apatheist but if so you don’t believe in theism. An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. (Thus, they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

“Damien, have you heard of the website for Agnostics?” – Questioner 

My response, I am not agnostic, so yes, while I have heard of the website, it does not interest me I would be classified as anti-agnostic. Thanks for asking.

“Damien, I love almost everything about you, but how can one be MORE than an agnostic without being dishonest with themselves? I mean, we tell the right they need to have evidence and use logic,… but then as atheists, one does the very thing they just said not to do to religious people… We cannot know for a FACT that there is a god, I understand that… But without some evidence to the contrary, we can’t KNOW that there ISNT…. Human intellect and logic only goes so far… Sure, I CHOOSE to live as though there is no god, but in being perfectly honest with ME, I cannot say there isn’t until I have proof… And the argument that you can’t prove a negative is debunked… In math, you can prove a negative, so you can do it in other realms as well… The point is, no evidence, no proof, no belief or disbelief. And using the other argument that an atheist is BORN THAT WAY, because it is just no belief is a bunch of crap. By now, atheists have proven that there is a logical thought-based attachment to the term “atheist”. One can bring out the definition all one wants, but the evidence is born out every day in the life of an atheist that it is a CHOICE one makes after having weighed the AVAILABLE evidence (or lack thereof) for a god, and dismissing it. The most honest position is to say, “I DON’T KNOW, but I CHOOSE to act or be this way”. It has nothing to do with not having balls, or not having an education or intellect ( I have multiple degrees and a 146 IQ).” – Challenger

My response, Did you read any of my blogs on Agnostism???

“IS it rational to ASSUME anything without evidence????? Didn’t you just justify the religious faith of billions????” – Challenger

My response, What! What is a god? Stop claiming to know “things” you do not know nor which you have no clue.

“Damien Marie AtHope if you didn’t understand that then you didn’t read it…. you ASSUMED…. that is performing an action of thought without the requisite LOGIC knowledge to support it, is it NOT?? How then, do you define faith?” – Challenger

My response, You don’t have a universal claim of what a god is, so first do that and make it valid and reliable to even require an assessment.

“Damien Marie AtHope Funny that you would IMMEDIATELY resort to ASSUMING that I believe in a god….Again, you’re assuming something on the basis that I provided an opposition to your thinking…. shame on you.” – Challenger

My response, I understand that all claims of god are made up nothing devoid of any kind of valid and reliable justification or warrant.

“Damien Marie AtHope and the belief you don’t have to provide an argument for something not proven is an easy out for the person that cant admit they don’t KNOW something but nevertheless claim there is no such thing……… Your problem is you try to shut down all dialog with the same claim….” – Challenger

My response, Again, no value is offered to require an assessment for the term god that is not truly anything.

“Damien Marie AtHope that you SAY is not truly anything…. smfh, and again, you shut down all dialog why???? Do you just not WANT to have the conversation??? Do you think there is a possibility there may be a flaw I YOUR logic so you don’t want to pursue it? I don’t understand… help me to understand, instead of stomping on me.” – Challenger

My response, No, I demand a valid offering of the claim and I know that not a person on the Earth can provide me what I asked and thus it is their failure to establish the burden of proof, not me. Lol And, great read my blogs and then ask me specific questions if you like.

“Damien Marie AtHope and AGAIN, because you can’t get past that SAME LAME front, you won’t try to think any more than the position you CHOOSE to hold… that’s sad.” – Challenger

My response, Do you think logic is evidence?

“Damien Marie AtHope I did… and I JUST DID! Do you??? Be careful how you answer as you will destroy your own walls….” – Challenger

My response, Ask it again relating to a claim I made in the blog.

“Damien Marie AtHope do you think LACK of evidence is evidence?” – Challenger

My response, Reason is my only master. And, No, I can “validate” all my claims.

“Damien Marie AtHope you just want to control things… I see that now… NO, I will ask it in the way I CHOOSE to… you will refuse to answer on that basis, proving my point for me. Damien Marie AtHope so you’re perfect?” – Challenger

My response, Is reason evidence? Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense: https://damienmarieathope.com/2017/10/archaeological-scientific-philosophic-evidence-showing-the-god-myth-is-man-made-nonsense/

“NO!!! Don’t go to pointing me to other places… that is BULLSHIT! And that does NOTHING anyway, as I am NOT TRYING TO PROVE A GOD…. See? you lack the understanding as to what my position even is….. You do this often.” – Challenger

My response, What is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about, thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept that connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Kurtz, New Skepticism, 220: “Ignosticism or igtheism, finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.” And moreover, “Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition, such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.

“Damien Marie AtHope and therein lies your contradiction!” – Challenger

My response, It is not bullshit to provide blogs that explain what you are trying to ask and I have been arguing with agnostic thinkers for over 10 years.

“Damien Marie AtHope and REPOSTING a repaste of the link I wished NOT to read is lame.” – Challenger

My response, There is no contradictory thing I stay what is a god, then challenge the offered assumptions.

“Damien Marie AtHope, it is bullshit to not form ORIGINAL thought SPECIFICALLY tailored to MY specific question in the NOW…. And, you’re trying to START the conversation with your OWN premise….” – Challenger

My response, Wrong, I start with “What is a god” question, remember, the one, no one can offer?

“Damien Marie AtHope AGAIN, I READ IT IN THE PAST!!!! YOURE the one not reading… and if you’re done like that, then you’re not the person you claim to be… you just lost my respect and unfriending. You just corporatized yourself, you’re no better than a bully.” – Challenger

My response, You do know that I am not the only public atheist what is not agnostic right so is Aron RA, Matt Dillahunty, David Silverman, and Peter Boghossian?

“Damien Marie AtHope so? I thought you were done… I was talking TO YOU because I respected you…. You want to treat me like a cookie cutter cut out you can throw pre-worded dialog at…. I deserve better than that. I am done here.” – Challenger

My response, Well, to you asking me if reason was evidence, absolutely. 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.

My response, 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 aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by 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.

I think, right thinking is reason. Right 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.

Here is a response from another person seeing this dialog: 

“Damien Marie AtHope I’ve encountered this troll before. Don’t waste your time. He’ll be threatening you next from whatever made up a place he claims to live in. When I dealt with him he was from Portland. Your best bet is to block this clear theist troll. I don’t argue with avatars and you are an obvious theist troll. Peace…” – Other Respondent 

“And remember you piece of shit, I BLOCKED YOU!! (Other Respondent), you run your mouth online, JUST LIKE YOU ARE DOING HERE, then when I give you my address to come talk that shit in person, you run away like THE TROLL YOU ARE! And thank you for proving my point once again.” – Challenger

I blocked you, bro. Now you are lying. And this is your 4th or 5th profile I’ve seen you under. Explain that?

(Other Respondent), yet here you are….” – Challenger

Not to argue with you. I’m only here to let Damien Marie AtHope know who he is dealing with.

“No, I am NOT an OBVIOUS theist anything. If oyu had ANY intelligence, you would see that I am an OBVIOUS AGNOSTIC human being, and YOU are STILL the proven troll. Again… yet here you are… trolling. (Other Respondent), so Damien is too stupid??? Is that what you’re saying??? Damien, EVEN I give you more credit than that!!! Now burn the fuck out you piece of coward shit troll. NO, I BLOCKED YOU!!! Why are YOU lying???!!! I have PLENTY of accounts… Why is THAT any of YOUR business??? Nor does it change the definition of a troll…AGAIN, you’re here spreading LIES that can be PROVEN BY my multiple accounts… I am NOTHING like a theist. Troll, you don’t do definitions though I see… And, Damien, you REALLY should find a better base. At least Trumps ADMIT they don’t care about the truth…“ – Challenger

My response, Challenger, you are the one now acting troll-like and you have tried many personal attacks on me and now others, simply this is not acceptable and not a valid way to talk to people. Please improve your discussion etiquette, as I would and do value as a positive intellectual standard of sticking to ideas and not making it about the people, thanks.

“Damien Marie AtHope I am most CERTAINLY not the one acting troll-like. AGAIN, the definition fits HIS comment, NOT mine…AND AGAIN, all I did was ask a question you went off… stop lying… Personal attacks???? wow… poor you. NOt making it about the people?? Really? You just said that with a straight face???? “So you are not reading then I am finished talking about this with you, cool. Take care.” THIS is why I unfriended you… you’re a liar and a deceiver… AND you make it all about you…. then accuse me of attacking you… I NEVER attacked YOU, I attacked you THINKING… but GOD forbid someone should EVER do that to the great late Damien Marie AtHope… smfh. Then to top it off,… you call ME a troll when WE were the ones IN A CONVERSATION.. or trying to… and then this piece f shit jumps in, THE DEFINITION of a troll… but you IGNORE him because he AGREES with you… YOURE THE ONE that made this the shit it is… Don’t try turning it around. You’re a TYPICAL atheist and prove my point all the way. Atheists are NEVER wrong… And everyone else ALWAYS is… smfh…” – Challenger

My response, Challenger, And this behavior by you is why I am now happy if you do unfriended me. Take care.

Damien, how do you feel about agnostics?:

“Damien, how do you feel about agnostics, such as myself. I admire some of the values of some religions as a guide to life, but I get to choose. I am with Pascal and Einstein, I don’t think the concept of God is rational, but I lose nothing by being a decent person, just in case.” Questioner

My response, How you pose the question of how I feel about agnostics, seems to infer that people who are agnostic unless I am misunderstanding, and on such a question of how I feel towards my fellow humans, agnostic or otherwise, well I strive to treat them humanistically, fairly, and equally. If you are instead asking if I am consenting in any way to agnostic thinking, my answer would unequivocally state no. I see agnostic thinking as a flaw in reasoning that seems to at least in some way accept the empty assertions of religion. I always work to attack thinking and not people. Furthermore, I have friends on Social Media who are religious, and don’t attack or even give them a hard time, I just address my thinking on my pages not at anyone unless they challenge me or the like. 

Philosophy Definitions of “Agnosticism”

“The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack of a belief in a god or gods’.” ref 

 Philosophy Definitions of “Agnosticism”

 From: “The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy“

 By Paul Draper PhD, Philosophy // Faculty at the University of California, Irvine

 First “Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists. Then the “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”.” ref 

 “In Grammar, negation, is the denial of the truth of a clause or sentence, typically involving the use of a negative word (e.g. not, no, never) or a word or affix with negative force (e.g. nothing, non-).” – Oxford Dictionaries.com

 “In Logic, negation, is a proposition whose assertion specifically denies the truth of another proposition. ‘the negation of A is, briefly, ‘not A.” – Oxford Dictionaries.com

 “While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy.  There is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”.  Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods).  Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Also, in none of those senses is one required to be an atheist in order to be an antitheist, so antitheism is not a variety of atheism.” ref 

 “Moreover, the “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”.  definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.” ref  

 “Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.” – thoughtco.com

 “Implicit atheism is simply the state of not believing in any gods.” – rationalwiki.org

 “Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.” – thoughtco.com 

 “Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist. Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.” – thoughtco.com 

 Definitions of “Agnosticism” By Paul Draper 

 “The terms “agnostic” and “agnosticism” were famously coined in the late nineteenth century by the English biologist, T.H. Huxley. He said that he originally 

invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence. (1884)” ref

 “including of course the matter of God’s existence. He did not, however, define “agnosticism” simply as the state of being an agnostic. Instead, he often used that term to refer to a normative epistemological principle, something similar to (though weaker than) what we now call “evidentialism”. Roughly, Huxley’s principle says that it is wrong to say that one knows or believes that a proposition is true without logically satisfactory evidence (Huxley 1884 and 1889). But it was Huxley’s application of this principle to theistic and atheistic belief that ultimately had the greatest influence on the meaning of the term. He argued that, since neither of those beliefs is adequately supported by evidence, we ought to suspend judgment on the issue of whether or not there is a God.” ref  

 “Nowadays, the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false. Not surprisingly, then, the term “agnosticism” is often defined, both in and outside of philosophy, not as a principle or any other sort of proposition but instead as the psychological state of being an agnostic. Call this the “psychological” sense of the term. It is certainly useful to have a term to refer to people who are neither theists nor atheists, but philosophers might wish that some other term besides “agnostic” (“theological skeptic”, perhaps?) were used.” ref   

 “The problem is that it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, or most ambitiously, that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of any sort. Just as the metaphysical question of God’s existence is central to philosophy of religion, so too is the epistemological question of whether or not theism or atheism is known or has some other sort of positive epistemic status.” ref   

 “And given the etymology of “agnostic”, what better term could there be for a negative answer to that epistemological question than “agnosticism”? Further, as suggested earlier, it is, for very good reason, typical in philosophy to use the suffix “-ism” to refer to a proposition instead of to a state or condition, since only the former can sensibly be tested by argument.” ref  

 “If, however, “agnosticism” is defined as a proposition, then “agnostic” must be defined in terms of “agnosticism” instead of the other way around. Specifically, “agnostic” must be defined as a person who believes that the proposition “agnosticism” is true instead of “agnosticism” being defined as the state of being an agnostic. And if the proposition in question is that neither theism nor atheism is known to be true, then the term “agnostic” can no longer serve as a label for those who are neither theists nor atheists since one can consistently believe that atheism (or theism) is true while denying that atheism (or theism) is known to be true.” ref  

 “When used in this epistemological sense, the term “agnosticism” can very naturally be extended beyond the issue of what is or can be known to cover a large family of positions, depending on what sort of “positive epistemic status” is at issue. For example, it might be identified with any of the following positions: that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief is justified, that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief is rationally required, that neither belief is rationally permissible, that neither has warrant, that neither is reasonable, or that neither is probable.” ref   

 “Also, in order to avoid the vexed issue of the nature of knowledge, one can simply distinguish as distinct members of the “agnosticism family” each of the following claims about intellectually sophisticated people: (i) neither theism nor atheism is adequately supported by the internal states of such people, (ii) neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief coheres with the rest of their beliefs, (iii) neither theistic nor atheistic belief results from reliable belief-producing processes, (iv) neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief results from faculties aimed at truth that are functioning properly in an appropriate environment, and so on.” ref  

 “Notice too that, even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist. Some fideists, for example, believe that neither atheistic belief nor theistic belief is supported or sanctioned in any way at all by reason because reason leaves the matter of God’s existence completely unresolved. Yet they have faith that God exists and such faith (at least in some cases) involves belief. Thus, some fideists are extreme agnostics in the epistemological sense even though they are not agnostics in the psychological sense.” ref  

 “It is also worth mentioning that, even in Huxley’s time, some apophatic theists embraced the term “agnostic”, claiming that all good Christians worshipped an “unknown God”. More recently, some atheists proudly call themselves “agnostic atheists”, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause. More likely, though, what is being claimed by these self-identified agnostic atheists is that, while their belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of some sort (minimally, it is not irrational), it does not have the sort of positive epistemic status that can turn true belief into knowledge.” ref  

 “No doubt both senses of “agnosticism”, the psychological and the epistemological, will continue to be used both inside and outside of philosophy. Hopefully, context will help to disambiguate. In the remainder of this entry, however, the term “agnosticism” will be used in its epistemological sense. This makes a huge difference to the issue of justification. Consider, for example, this passage written by the agnostic, Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85):

 I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic.” ref

 “It is one thing to ask whether Kenny’s inability to find arguments that convince him of God’s existence or non-existence justifies him personally in suspending judgment about the existence of God. It is quite another to ask whether this inability (or anything else) would justify his believing that no one (or at least no one who is sufficiently intelligent and well-informed) has a justified belief about God’s existence.” ref  

 “If agnosticism (in one sense of the word) is the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, then it might be useful to use the term “gnosticism” to refer to the contradictory of that position, that is, to the position that either theism or atheism is known. That view would, of course, come in two flavors: theistic gnosticism—the view that theism is known (and hence atheism is not)—and atheistic gnosticism—the view that atheism is known (and hence theism is not).” ref    

An Argument Against Agnosticism By Paul Draper 

 “The topic in Le Poidevin’s argument for the truth of a modest form of agnosticism for the falsity of a more ambitious form of agnosticism will be examined. Because the sort of agnosticism addressed in this section is more ambitious than the sort defended by Le Poidevin, it is conceivable that both arguments succeed in establishing their conclusions.” ref 

 “In Le Poidevin’s argument, the term “agnosticism” refers to the position that neither versatile theism nor global atheism is known to be true. In this section, “agnosticism” refers to the position that neither the belief that omni-theism is true nor the belief that it is false is rationally permissible. This form of agnosticism is more ambitious because knowledge is stronger (in the logical sense) than rational permissibility: it can be rationally permissible to believe propositions that are not known to be true, but a proposition cannot be known to be true by someone who is not rationally permitted to believe it. Thus, an appropriate name for this form of agnosticism is “strong agnosticism.” ref 

 “Another difference concerns the object of the two forms of agnosticism. The agnosticism in Le Poidevin’s argument concerned versatile theism versus global atheism. In this section, the target is omni-theism versus the local atheistic position that omni-theism is false. The previous section focused on two arguments for the conclusion that this form of local atheism is very probably true. In this section, the question is whether or not that conclusion, if established, could ground a successful argument against strong agnosticism.” ref 

 “Such an argument can be formulated as follows:

 (1)Atheism (understood here as the denial of omni-theism) is very probably true.

(2)If atheism is very probably true, then atheistic belief is rationally permissible.” ref 

 “It follows from (1) and (2) that   

• (3)Atheistic belief is rationally permissible.
• (4)If strong agnosticism (about omni-theism) is true (that is, if withholding judgment about the truth or falsity of omni-theism is rationally required), then atheistic belief is not rationally permissible.   

It follows from (3) and (4) that   

• (5)Strong agnosticism (about omni-theism) is false.” ref    

:’Premise (1) was defended in link, premise (4) is true by the definition of “strong agnosticism”, and steps (3) and (5) follow from earlier steps by modus ponens and modus tollens, respectively. This leaves premise (2), the premise that, if atheism is very probably true, then atheistic belief is rationally permissible.” ref    

“One might attempt to defend this premise by claiming that the probabilities in premise (2) are rational credences and hence the truth of the so-called Lockean thesis (Foley 1992) justifies (2):

It is rational for a person S to believe a proposition P if and only if it is rational for S’s credence in P to be sufficiently high to make S’s attitude towards P one of belief.” ref

“The Lockean thesis, however, is itself in need of justification. Fortunately, though, nothing so strong as the Lockean thesis is needed to defend premise (2). For one thing, all the defender of (2) needs is an “if”, not an “if and only if”. Also, the defender of (2) need not equate, as the Lockean thesis does, the attitude of belief with having a high credence. Thus, all that is required is the following more modest thesis (call it “T”):   

• (T)If it is rationally permissible for S’s credence in a proposition P to be (very) high, then it is rationally permissible for S to believe P.” ref   

 “Even this more modest thesis, however, is controversial, because adopting it commits one to the position that rational (i.e., rationally permissible) belief is not closed under conjunction. In other words, it commits one to the position that it is possible for each of a number of beliefs to be rational even though the additional belief that those beliefs are all true is not rational.” ref   

 “To see why this is so, imagine that a million lottery tickets have been sold. Each player purchased only a single ticket, and exactly one of the players is certain to win. Now imagine further that an informed observer has a distinct belief about each of the million individual players that that particular player will lose. According to thesis T, each of those million beliefs is rational. For example, if Sue is one of the players, then according to T the observer’s belief that Sue will lose is rational because it is rational for the observer to have a (very) high credence in the proposition that Sue will lose.” ref    

 “Since, however, it is certain that someone will win, it is also rational for the observer to believe that some player will win. It is not rational, however, to have contradictory beliefs, so it is not rational for the observer to believe that no player will win. This implies, however, that rational belief is not closed under conjunction, for the proposition that no player will win just is the conjunction of all of the propositions that say of some individual player that they will lose.” ref 

“Defenders of premise (2) will claim, very plausibly, that the implication of T that rational belief is not closed under conjunction is completely innocuous. Isn’t it obvious, for example, that it would not be rational for a fallible human being to believe that all of their many beliefs are true, even if each of those beliefs were rational? Others (e.g., Oppy 1994: 151), however, regard the conclusion that rational belief is not closed under conjunction as unacceptable and will for that reason reject premise (2). So even if it can be shown that omni-theism is very probably false, it still won’t be obvious to everyone that it is rationally permissible to be a local atheist about omni-theism and thus it still won’t be obvious to everyone that strong agnosticism about omni-theism is false.” ref

An Argument for Global Atheism? By Paul Draper 

“Almost all well-known arguments for atheism are arguments for a particular version of local atheism. One possible exception to this rule is an argument recently made popular by some New Atheists, although it was not invented by them. Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism: 

• (1)The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
• (2)There is no good reason to believe that God exists.

It follows from (1) and (2) that

• (3)There is good reason to believe that God does not exist.” ref

“Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.” ref 

“Can the no arguments argument be construed as an argument for global atheism? One might object that it is not, strictly speaking, an argument for any sort of atheism since its conclusion is not that atheism is true but instead that there is good reason to believe that atheism is true. But that is just a quibble. Ultimately, whether this argument can be used to defend global atheism depends on how its first premise is defended.” ref  

‘The usual way of defending it is to derive it from some general principle according to which lacking grounds for claims of a certain sort is good reason to reject those claims. The restriction of this principle to claims “of a certain sort” is crucial, since the principle that the absence of grounds for a claim is in all cases a good reason to believe that the claim is false is rather obviously false. One might, for example, lack grounds for believing that the next time one flips a coin it will come up heads, but that is not a good reason to believe that it won’t come up heads.” ref 

“A more promising approach restricts the principle to existence claims, thereby turning it into a version of Ockham’s razor. According to this version of the principle, the absence of grounds supporting a positive existential statement (like “God exists”—however “God” is understood) is a good reason to believe that the statement is false (McLaughlin 1984). One objection to this principle is that not every sort of thing is such that, if it existed, then we would likely have good reason to believe that it exists. Consider, for example, intelligent life in distant galaxies (cf. Morris 1985).” ref 

“Perhaps, however, an even more narrowly restricted principle would do the trick: whenever the assumption that a positive existential claim is true would lead one to expect to have grounds for its truth, the absence of such grounds is a good reason to believe that the claim is false. It might then be argued that (i) a God would be likely to provide us with convincing evidence of Her existence and so (ii) the absence of such evidence is a good reason to believe that God does not exist. This transforms the no arguments argument into an argument from divine hiddenness. It also transforms it into at best an argument for local atheism, since even if the God of, say, classical theism would not hide, not all legitimate God-concepts are such that a being instantiating that concept would be likely to provide us with convincing evidence of its existence.” ref 

Two Arguments for Local Atheism By Paul Draper  

1. How to Argue for Local Atheism

 “The sort of God in whose non-existence philosophers seem most interested is the eternal, non-physical, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (i.e., morally perfect) creator-God worshipped by many theologically orthodox Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Let’s call the proposition that a God of this sort exists “omni-theism”. One interesting question, then, is how best to argue for atheism understood locally as the proposition that omni-theism is false.” ref 

 “It is often claimed that a good argument for atheism is impossible because, while it is at least possible to prove that something of a certain sort exists, it is impossible to prove that nothing of that sort exists. One reason to reject this claim is that the descriptions of some kinds of objects are self-contradictory. For example, we can prove that no circular square exists because such an object would have to be both circular and non-circular, which is impossible. Thus, one way to argue for the nonexistence of the God of omni-theism (or “omni-God” for short) is to argue that such a God is an impossible object like a circular square.” ref  

 ‘”Many attempts have been made to construct such arguments. For example, it has been claimed that an omnibenevolent being would be impeccable and so incapable of wrongdoing, while an omnipotent being would be quite capable of doing things that would be wrong to do. There are, however, sophisticated and plausible replies to arguments like these. More importantly, even if such an argument succeeded, omni-theists could plausibly claim that, by “omnipotent”, they mean, not maximally powerful, but optimally powerful, where the optimal degree of power may not be maximal if maximal power rules out possessing the optimal degree of some other perfection like moral goodness.” ref 

 “Similar problems face attempts to show that omni-theism must be false because it is incompatible with certain known facts about the world. Such arguments typically depend on detailed and contested interpretations of divine attributes like omnibenevolence. A very different approach is based on the idea that disproof need not be demonstrative. The goal of this approach is to show that the existence of an omni-God is so improbable that confident belief in the non-existence of such a God is justified. Two such arguments are discussed in detail below: the “low priors argument” and the “decisive evidence argument”. Each of these arguments employs the same specific strategy, which is to argue that some alternative hypothesis to omni-theism is many times more probable than omni-theism.” ref  

 “This doesn’t imply that the alternative hypothesis is probably true, but it does imply that omni-theism is very probably false. In the case of the second argument, the alternative hypothesis (aesthetic deism) is arguably a form of theism, and even in the case of the first argument it is arguable that the alternative hypothesis (source physicalism) is compatible with some forms of theism (in particular ones in which God is an emergent entity). This is not a problem for either argument, however, precisely because both are arguments for local atheism instead of global atheism.” ref  

2. The Low Priors Argument

 “The basic idea behind the low priors argument is that, even if the agnostic is right that, when it comes to God’s existence, the evidence is ambiguous or absent altogether, what follows is not that theism has a middling probability all things considered, but instead that theism is very probably false. This is said to follow because theism starts out with a very low probability before taking into account any evidence. (“Evidence” in this context refers to factors extrinsic to a hypothesis that raise or lower its probability.) Since ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect on that prior or intrinsic probability, the posterior or all-things-considered probability of theism is also very low. If, however, theism is very probably false, then atheism must be very probably true and this implies (according to the defender of the argument) that atheistic belief is justified.” ref  

 “This sort of argument is very relevant to the issue of which of atheism and theism is the appropriate “default” position. If theism has a sufficiently low intrinsic probability, then atheism is arguably the correct default position in the sense that ambiguous or absent evidence will justify, not suspending judgment on the issue of God’s existence, but instead believing that God does not exist. This is why Le Poidevin’s argument for agnosticism includes, not just a premise asserting that the relevant evidence is ambiguous, but also one asserting that, at least in the case of versatile theism, we are in the dark when it comes to the issue of which of theism and atheism has a higher intrinsic probability. Unfortunately, much discussion of the issue of which position is the correct “default position” or of who has the “burden of proof” gets sidetracked by bad analogies to Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and Bertrand Russell’s ([1952] 1997) famous china teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun (see Garvey 2010 and van Inwagen 2012 for criticism of some of these analogies). The low priors argument implicitly addresses this important issue in a much more sophisticated and promising way. ” ref  

 “In the version of the low priors argument formulated below, the basic approach described above is improved by comparing omni-theism, not simply to its denial, but instead to a more specific atheistic hypothesis called “source physicalism”. Unlike ontological physicalism, source physicalism is a claim about the source of mental entities, not about their nature. Source physicalists, whether they are ontological physicalists or ontological dualists, believe that the physical world existed before the mental world and caused the mental world to come into existence, which implies that all mental entities are causally dependent on physical entities. Further, even if they are ontological dualists, source physicalists need not claim that mental entities never cause physical entities or other mental entities, but they must claim that there would be no mental entities were it not for the prior existence (and causal powers) of one or more physical entities.” ref  

 “The argument proceeds as follows:    

• (1)The total evidence does not favor omni-theism over source physicalism.
• (2)Source physicalism is many times more probable intrinsically than omni-theism. 

It follows from (1) and (2) that 

• (3)Source physicalism is many times more probable than omni-theism.

It follows from (3) that

(4)Omni-theism is very probably false. 

It follows from (4) that 

• (5)Atheism (understood here as the denial of omni-theism) is very probably true.

Only the argument’s two premises—steps (1) and (2)—are controversial. The other steps in the argument all clearly follow from previous steps.” ref

“A thorough examination of the arguments for and against premise (1) is obviously impossible here, but it is worth mentioning that a defense of this premise need not claim that the known facts typically thought by natural theologians to favor omni-theism over competing hypotheses like source physicalism have no force. Instead, it could be claimed that whatever force they have is offset at least to some significant degree by more specific facts favoring source physicalism over omni-theism. Natural theologians routinely ignore these more specific facts and thus appear to commit what might be called “the fallacy of understated evidence”. More precisely, the point is this. Even when natural theologians successfully identify some general fact about a topic that is more probable given omni-theism than given source physicalism, they ignore other more specific facts about that same topic, facts that, given the general fact, appear to be significantly more probable given source physicalism than given omni-theism.” ref

“For example, even if omni-theism is supported by the general fact that the universe is complex, one should not ignore the more specific fact, discovered by scientists, that underlying this complexity at the level at which we experience the universe, is a much simpler early universe from which this complexity arose, and also a much simpler contemporary universe at the micro-level, one consisting of a relatively small number of different kinds of particles all of which exist in one of a relatively small number of different states. In short, it is important to take into account, not just the general fact that the universe that we directly experience with our senses is extremely complex, but also the more specific fact that two sorts of hidden simplicity within the universe can explain that complexity.” ref   

“Given that a complex universe exists, this more specific fact is exactly what one would expect on source physicalism, because, as the best natural theologians (e.g., Swinburne 2004) say, the complexity of the universe cries out for explanation in terms of something simpler. There is, however, no reason at all to expect this more specific fact on omni-theism since, if those same natural theologians are correct, then a simple God provides a simple explanation for the observed complexity of the universe whether or not that complexity is also explained by any simpler mediate physical causes.” ref 

 “Another example concerns consciousness. Its existence really does seem to be more likely given omni-theism than given source physicalism (and thus to raise the ratio of the probability of omni-theism to the probability of source physicalism). But we know a lot more about consciousness than just that it exists. We also know, thanks in part to the relatively new discipline of neuroscience, that conscious states in general and even the very integrity of our personalities, not to mention the apparent unity of the self, are dependent to a very high degree on physical events occurring in the brain. Given the general fact that consciousness exists, we have reason on source physicalism that we do not have on theism to expect these more specific facts. Given theism, it would not be surprising at all if our minds were more independent of the brain than they in fact are. After all, if omni-theism is true, then at least one mind, God’s, does not depend at all on anything physical. Thus, when the available evidence about consciousness is fully stated, it is far from clear that it significantly favors omni-theism.” ref   

 “Similar problems threaten to undermine appeals to fine-tuning—that is, appeals to the fact that a number of apparently independent physical parameters have values that, while not fixed by current physical theory, nevertheless happen to fall within a relatively narrow “life-permitting” range assuming no changes to other parameters. Arguably, given that fine-tuning is required for intelligent life and that an omni-God has reason to create intelligent life, we have more reason to expect fine-tuning on omni-theism than on source physicalism. Given such fine-tuning, however, it is far more surprising on omni-theism than on source physicalism that our universe is not teeming with intelligent life and that the most impressive intelligent organisms we know to exist are merely human: self-centered and aggressive primates who far too often kill, rape, and torture each other.” ref   

 “In fairness to omni-theism, however, most of those humans are moral agents and many have religious experiences apparently of God. The problem is that, while the existence of moral agents is “predicted” by omni-theism better than by source physicalism, it is also true that, given their existence, the variety and frequency of easily avoidable conditions that promote morally bad behavior and that severely limit the freedom, agency, and autonomy of countless human beings are much more likely on source physicalism. And while religious experiences apparently of God are no doubt more to be expected if an omni-God exists than if human beings are the product of blind physical forces, it is also true that, given that such experiences do occur, various facts about their distribution that should be surprising to theists are exactly what one would expect on source physicalism, such as the fact that many people never have them and the fact that those who do have them almost always have either a prior belief in God or extensive exposure to a theistic religion.” ref  

 “It seems, then, that when it comes to evidence favoring omni-theism over source physicalism, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Further, when combined with the fact that what we know about the level of well-being of sentient beings and the extent of their suffering is arguably vastly more probable on source physicalism than on theism, a very strong though admittedly controversial case for premise (1) can be made.” ref 

 “What about premise (2)? Again, a serious case can be made for its truth. Such a case first compares source physicalism, not to omni-theism, but to its opposite, source idealism. Source idealists believe that the mental world existed before the physical world and caused the physical world to come into existence. This view is consistent with both ontological idealism and ontological dualism, and also with physical entities having both physical and mental effects. It entails, however, that all physical entities are, ultimately, causally dependent on one or more mental entities, and so is not consistent with ontological physicalism. The symmetry of source physicalism and source idealism is a good pro tanto reason to believe they are equally probable intrinsically. They are equally specific, they have the same ontological commitments, neither can be formulated more elegantly than the other, and each appears to be equally coherent and equally intelligible. They differ on the issue of what is causally dependent on what, but if Hume is right and causal dependence relations can only be discovered by observation and not a priori, then that won’t affect the intrinsic probabilities of the two hypotheses.” ref  

 “Omni-theism, however, is a very specific version of source idealism; it entails that source idealism is true but goes far beyond source idealism by making a number of very specific claims about the sort of “mental world” that produced the physical world. For example, it adds the claim that a single mind created the physical universe and that this mind is not just powerful but specifically omnipotent and not just knowledgeable but specifically omniscient. In addition, it presupposes a number of controversial metaphysical and meta-ethical claims by asserting in addition that this being is both eternal and objectively morally perfect. If any of these specific claims and presuppositions is false, then omni-theism is false. Thus, omni-theism is a very specific and thus intrinsically very risky form of source idealism, and thus is many times less probable intrinsically than source idealism. Therefore, if, as argued above, source physicalism and source idealism are equally probable intrinsically, then it follows that premise (2) is true: source physicalism is many times more probable intrinsically than omni-theism.” ref  

 Agnostics, theistic belief is not the default, a-(without)-theism is. So if you are without or lack theistic belief you are atheist. 

 “The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”.” ref

 Religion and theistic beliefs are learned Authority bias, “Illusion of truth effect”, “Status quo bias“, “Anchoring bias”, “Confirmation bias” and “Post-purchase rationalization.” 

 Yes or no is the question?

 Science or reason and evidence are about epistemic certainty. One can have no epistemic certainty and have psychological certainty theists do it all the time. Or one can have epistemic proof (sound justification: reason and evidence) and still have psychological uncertainty thus call themselves agnostic. As to believe or not believe is the question and there is only yes or no = in logic A or not A. Anything other than I believe is to lack belief thus Atheist.

 So agnostic is referring to a lack of psychological certainty, and as psychological certainty means nothing to the truth about the world but instead means your personal feeling it thus doesn’t make any reasoned difference.

 You can be agnostic and atheist as in one can have epistemic proof to not believe in theism thus an atheist (sound justification: reason and evidence) and still have psychological uncertainty thus call themselves agnostic.   

Religion and god believers are often Psychologically Certain without having Epistemic Certainty. And often scientists are not Psychologically Certain even after having Epistemic Certainty.  There are at least two kinds of certainty!  One kind of certainty is, *Psychological Certainty: can be thought of in 0% to 100%. Another kind of certainty is, *Epistemic Certainty: cannot be thought of in % as one either has valid and reliable reason and evidence or not. 

Yes, there are at least two kinds of certainty in philosophy.  

 One kind of certainty is psychological certainty: (can be thought of in 0% to 100%)

A belief is psychologically certain when the subject who has it is supremely convinced of its truth. Certainty in this sense is similar to incorrigibility, which is the property a belief has of being such that the subject is incapable of giving it up. But psychological certainty is not the same thing as incorrigibility. A belief can be certain in this sense without being incorrigible; this may happen, for example, when the subject receives a very compelling bit of counterevidence to the (previously) certain belief and gives it up for that reason.

Another kind of certainty is epistemic certainty: (cannot be thought of in % as one either has valid and reliable reason and evidence or not)

“A belief is epistemically certain when it has the highest possible epistemic status. Epistemic certainty is often accompanied by psychological certainty, but it need not be. It is possible that a subject may have a belief that enjoys the highest possible epistemic status and yet be unaware that it does. In such a case, the subject may feel less than the full confidence that her epistemic position warrants.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/

“Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs.” ref

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.

 Disproof by logical contradiction ‘A Logical Impossibility’ (especially in reductio ad absurdum arguments)

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

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

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

God myth claims are an Axiological “Presumptive-Value” Failure

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

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

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

Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for some god or another. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiability claim that such unknown is god or evidence of god). What really is a god anyway? 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.

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology?

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusion’s rational viability.

It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

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

The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

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

Now the axiological validity of Gods

There is no evidence for Gods.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief, a negation ie. contradiction or denial of belief.

“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.” ref, ref

“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.” ref, ref

“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

Challenging Agnosticism Assumptions

Damien Marie AtHope’s Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions:

1. Weakest implicit Nontheistic/Atheism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief includes infants or babies who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and agnostics who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief (absence of religious motivation).

2. Strong implicit Atheism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” nonbelief include apatheist atheists who are not interested in gods exist claims agnostics who explicitly rejected that one can make a choice in god beliefs.

3. Weak Explicit Atheism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists but unsure they can fully reject a belief that any deities exist, some call this agnostic atheism.

4. Strong Explicit Atheism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” atheists either reject the god concept or week conscious rejection of belief any deities some could call this ignostic atheism.

5. Strongest Explicit Atheism:“positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist or at least one, many deities don’t exist or a strong conscious rejection of belief, one or any deities some could call this antitheist atheism.

6. Weakest implicit Theistic thinking/Theism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes small children who are indoctrinated and don’t know or understand what and why they believe, only believe as told to believe or those who believe in deism, pantheism, vague theism, or somethingism as possibilities of god beliefs (absence of full religious motivation).

7. Weak implicit Theism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” belief includes apatheist theists who kind of believe but are not that interested in existence claims or agnostics who are open to god beliefs but are unsure if they should believe.

8. Weak Explicit Theism:“negative” / “weak” / “soft” theists some beliefs but unsure they can fully accept a belief that one or any deities exist some call this agnostic theism.

9. Strong Explicit Theism:“positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists either generally accept the god(s) concept(s) or week conscious accepting of belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this standard theism.

10. Strongest Explicit Theism:“positive” / “strong” / “hard” theists assert that at least one deity exists or strong conscious belief in one, many or any deities, some could call this gnostic theism.

Damien-Marie AtHopes scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions

“I’m on 3. Weak Explicit Atheism and or, 7. Weak implicit Theism.” – Challenger 

My response, So you have no belief in any gods but don’t know and you have belief in gods but don’t know? So you either have or don’t have belief.

“I just edited. In my view, materialism is almost on the same route as theism since materialism as a philosophical stance or position can’t be proven either.” – Challenger 

My response, So you don’t believe in gods thus are a 3.

“I’m neither because I don’t really know and I admit that I’m a bit sympathetic to it lately.  Although I’m still not sure.” – Challenger 

My response, Giving an excuse to why you don’t believe so yep still a 3 now with an argument for why you are a #3, ok. Logic is either A or not A.

“Agnosticism so middle but now I admit that I’m more Theistic than Atheistic which was my worldview before. Until I find good and better arguments perhaps I could go back to atheism again. But only a little move towards Theism since I don’t find good arguments lately. https://youtu.be/9bsj_y2oZX” – Challenger 

My response, Agnosticism s not a standard approach to epistemology, it is a set of usually folk philosophy and folk logic erroring in thinking to validate what Agnostic thinkers think. I am anti-agnostic it’s generally invalid to me.

“To me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know. Damien Marie AtHope, to me, there’s nothing wrong in stating that you don’t know.” – Challenger 

My response, As always WHAT is a god to even say you don’t know or to say you can doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about this to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

“I agree with Wittgenstein that asking questions about the soul is a misleading question since the soul is not a physical object. I’m not a professional philosopher of religion but the I believe that the “I” is fundamental and I don’t find inductive arguments against Theism as strong as I once thought it to be back then.” – Challenger 

My response, What is it you don’t know about the thing labeled/termed gods, that is not a justified claim to anything real, to begin with? What is a valid god claim to even accept as valid to start doubting, how can you claim to have knowledge of a thing you don’t know so you can say you don’t know it. Do you believe the foundation of all thinking is agnosticism as you say its a label for not knowing? Is agnosticism a pre-belief or post belief an a priori stance before the question of “do you believe” is addressed?  What is a soul? I’m not a professional philosopher of religion, also, so we are the same in that way. \m/ “Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

“So, what are your arguments against Theism?” – Challenger 

My response, What is a god? 

My Thoughts on the Evolution of God?

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 years ago. Then Moralistic gods around 5,000 years ago.

Silence is no virtue, especially against injustice, oppression, or untruths. From our natural only reality, there is no need to hide, for Atheism and a magic-free universe is the truth and theism religion and its supernatural thinking gods are just a lie. Truth deserves to be supported and has no need to remain silent and should instead, inspire its strong championing. I hear this call deep in me to bravely champion the truth of atheism and I do it with pride. To me, Animistic Somethingism: You just feel/think there has to be something supernatural/spirit-world or feel/think things are supernatural/spirit-filled. “Somethingism” is commonly an unspecified belief in an undetermined supernatural reality, stated sometimes as spiritual but not religious, but, to me, is basically unrealized animism. Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO! May I remind you , vague theism, somethingism or “ietsism” is not some Philosophers Stone of Theism removed from strong critique.

So loudly, I will proclaim supernatural, and gods are willful mental illusions, confusions, and lies that are commonly inspired by a life of religious influences, religiously motivated fears, and or religious indoctrination. I laugh at questions like “what would convince you of god” as if I approach thinking differently dependent. As a rationalist I am always moved best by valid and reliable reason and evidence, you know the very stuff, all religions and any supernatural claim always lack in the end. Religion is big on claims but small of real reasoning, full of logical fallacies in thinking, and no evidence to quorate all their delusionary supernatural nonsense and superstitions.

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.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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 pastors, 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

• Faith Drunk thinking: Divine fallacy, Argument from Incredulity, and Argument from ignorance
• Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• Religious Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion and its Multiple Fallacy Subheadings
• Two Dogmatic-Propaganda Fallacies and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”
• The Faith Fallacy vs. Critical Thinking
• The God Fallacy

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?

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

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, 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.

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. 

The Agnostic that was “For Sure”

I dealt with an agnostic that was confident in what he thinks or believes he knows; having no doubt that he was right.

Prove to me that there are not jolly green giants, keeping vegetables crisp in the freezer? Until then should I be an agnostic about it? Or is this claim like god-something thinking, just nonsense not related to reality. How do you logically think you can go from a claim of not knowing to then strongly claim this is their only logical position making a truth claim after all. So now as the holder of the burden of proof by such claim you made stating to know. Be someone almost anyone can be inspired by, yes be a champion of kindness. Spread the beauty of the heart everywhere as there is such great need… Will the world be moved by your decency and kindness in how you treat others or your depravity and unkindness you show to others? I know that I am responsible.

Rejection of Theism as well as Agnosticism and a Valid Atheism Conclusion? 

“Damien AtHope, There’s no evidence either way though. You can’t prove there isn’t a god any easier then you can prove there is a god. The logical route is being agnostic, it’s as ignorant to assume there isn’t a god at all as there is a god when it’s equally provable and improvable.” – Challenger 

What do you mean by logic? Are you agreeing thinking can be valid evidence or not? If so then I did use logic towards the claims of gods and logically explained why they are not logical. If you are making a certainty argument then you need to get that there is at least two kinds of Certainty in philosophy psychological certainty that you demonstrate in your truth claims you offer about your beliefs. The other is epistemic certainty that one has the highest sound justification or warrant to believe something like how reality is devoid of anything supernatural at all levels in every test ever done. 

“Psychological certainty: The first is the one we typically mean in normal language. It’s called psychological certainty. It’s a feeling of certainty; A confidence in something. This is the one we’re talking about when we say things like “Are you 100% sure?”. It is possible that someone is 100% psychologically certain that something is true and that the something is actually false. Psychological certainty comes in degrees. Good examples of psychological certainty and false beliefs are found in religious people and various sport fans.” ref 

“Epistemic certainty: The second is epistemic certainty. This is the one that philosophers usually talk about. It’s the inability to be wrong type of certainty. If one is epistemically certain, then one cannot be wrong in some sense. This type of certainty is also called cartesian (after Descartes) certainty, infallible certainty and absolute certainty. This type of certainty does not come in degrees; Either one is epistemically certain or one is not. It is not entirely clear how to explicate this kind of certainty. Here are two proposals:

1. For all agents and for all propositions, (that an agent believes a proposition and that proposition is necessarily the case) logically implies that that agent is epistemically certain of that proposition.
2. For all agents and for all propositions, that an agent believes a proposition logically implies that proposition.” ref

Baron Reed ( The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) – “Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. It can be said that certainty is either the highest form of knowledge or is the only epistemic property superior to knowledge. One of the primary motivations for allowing kinds of knowledge less than certainty is the widespread sense that skeptical arguments are successful in showing that we rarely or never have beliefs that are certain but do not succeed in showing that our beliefs are altogether without epistemic worth (for example, an argument that skepticism undermines every epistemic status a belief might have; and the argument that knowledge requires certainty, which we are capable of having). As with knowledge, it is difficult to provide an uncontentious analysis of certainty. There are several reasons for this. One is that there are different kinds of certainty, which are easy to conflate. Another is that the full value of certainty is surprisingly hard to capture. A third reason is that there are two dimensions to certainty: a belief can be certain at a moment or over some greater length of time.” ref 

“Damien, Yeah no, “God” Could exist in an infinite variety of concepts we just don’t yet fully understand. It doesn’t have to be the Abrahamic version that has been presented, and logically there’s no reason stories created by men to control other men would actually be true, that is what makes it logical to be Agnostic not Atheist. You can try to rationalize it however you want it comes down to very basic principals. You have no evidence against the existence of a god any more then anyone have proof of a god. Anything you would try to use as “proof” Is equally valid as theirs because in the end you’re just rationalizing things. You can provide no proof or evidence to the lack of an existence of a god that doesn’t require mental gymnastics or ludicrous amounts of assumptions about what is supposed to be an entity of inconceivable potential. Either way you’re just trying to move the goal posts from the original point. You cannot provide any more proof to the lack of an existence then anyone can to prove there is. Philosophy is irrelevant, this is not a philosophical debate I am presenting. It is a factual one based in STEM. If you want to have a philosophical debate about it then you’re both right because philosophy comes down to rationalizing why you’re correct.” – Challenger 

“It’s about starting with an assumption then working to explain why it’s right instead of the opposite of trying to find out why the way something is and coming to a conclusion. The greatest philosophers of all time disagreed with each other even though they where taught by each other, it is not a science that can be used as fact like Physics or Biochem. You could argue you’re an atheist to the idea of the monotheist religions and I would agree to that. I do not believe there to be a god in the way stories of man have attempted to control each other with. There could very well be unknown forces within the universe that have deity like effects we’re incapable of interpreting at this time. What one could consider a “God” could very well still exist in many capacities. It’s arrogant and ignorant to say “Well I thought of some reasons it might not, so that means it must not” because I can think of some reasons it might be, and by your logic it must also be. This is why philosophy doesn’t work the way you’re trying to use it. it is not something that has objective truth. Even objective truth is up for debate when it comes to philosophy. So stop it.” – Challenger 

What is a god to position your agnostic doubt on logically?    

You Can Prove a Negative – Stephen Law Ph.D.

“One reason that some people suppose science and reason are incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that certain supernatural claims—for example, that fairies or angels or spirit beings exist—are false, is that they assume you can’t prove a negative. Indeed this is widely supposed to be some sort of “law of logic.” For example, Georgia minister Dr. Nelson L. Price asserts on his website that “one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.” If Price is correct and this is indeed a law of logic, then of course it immediately follows that we can’t prove that there are no fairies, angels, or spirit beings, or, indeed, that there is no god. We will have established that the nonexistence of God is indeed beyond the ability of reason and/or science to establish!” ref 

“The fact is, however, that this supposed “law of logic” is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper “You Can Prove a Negative,” “You can’t prove a negative” is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic. Notice, for a start, that “You cannot prove a negative” is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. “I exist” is logically equivalent to “I do not not exist,” which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!).” ref  

Steven D. Hales’ short statment: “It is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Some people even think 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.” ref 

“Of course, those who say “You can’t prove a negative” will insist that I have misunderstood their point. As Hales notes, when people say, “You can’t prove a negative,” what they really mean is that you cannot prove that something does not exist. If this point were correct, it would apply not just to supernatural beings lying beyond the cosmic veil but also to things that might be supposed to exist on this side of the veil, such as unicorns, Martians, rabbits with twenty heads, and so on. We would not be able to prove the nonexistence of any of these things either. But is the point correct? Is it true that we can never prove that something does not exist? Again, it depends. If John claims there’s a unicorn in the tool shed, I can quickly establish he is mistaken by going and taking a look. We could similarly establish there’s no Loch Ness monster by draining the loch. But what of the claim that unicorns once existed? We can’t travel back in time and directly observe all of the past as we can every corner of the tool shed or Loch Ness. Does it follow that we can’t prove unicorns never existed?” ref 

“It depends in part on what you mean by “prove.” The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is “proved,” I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it’s surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I’d suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt.” ref 

“In response, it might be said “But you can’t prove conclusively, beyond all possible doubt, that unicorns never roamed the earth.” This is undeniably true. However, this point is not peculiar to negatives. It can be made about any claim about the unobserved, and thus any scientific theory at all, including scientific theories about what does exist. We can prove beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs existed, but not beyond all possible doubt. Despite the mountain of evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth, it’s still possible that, say, all those dinosaur fossils are fakes placed there by alien pranksters long ago.” ref 

“Let’s sum up. If “you can’t prove a negative” means you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things don’t exist, then the claim is just false. We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, “you can’t prove a negative” means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don’t exist.” ref 

And there you go again making objective truth claims about philosophy while claiming it has no objective truth. You are a truth claim generator then trying to avoid the fact you are doing this at the same time. Is that how you feel good philosophy works? What standard of truth are you employing and how have you assessed it accurately? Here are three different ones: the correspondence theory of truth, the coherence theory of truth and the pragmatic theory of truth. And if objective truth is up for debate then how do you assume you have it to say your position is accurate rather than just what you favor as in stop making assumptions that you know others that don’t have your “non-objective” beliefs are illogical. You are dubbed talking acting like you can make objective truth claims yet state doubt in objective truth claims.  

“Narrowly speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is correspondence to, or with, a fact” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ 

“Truth-bearers: “There have been many debates in the literature over what the primary bearers of truth are. Candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ 

“An Argument for Global Atheism? Almost all well-known arguments for atheism are arguments for a particular version of local atheism. One possible exception to this rule is an argument recently made popular by some New Atheists, although it was not invented by them. Gary Gutting (2013) calls this argument the “no arguments argument” for atheism:

(1) The absence of good reasons to believe that God exists is itself a good reason to believe that God does not exist.
(2) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(3) It follows from (1) and (2) that, there is good reason to believe that God does not exist.
Notice the obvious relevance of this argument to agnosticism. According to one prominent member of the agnosticism family, we have no good reason to believe that God exists and no good reason to believe that God does not exist. Clearly, if the first premise of this argument is true, then this version of agnosticism must be false.” ref  

Two Arguments for Local Atheism –  Paul Draper (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“How to Argue for Local Atheism: The sort of God in whose non-existence philosophers seem most interested is the eternal, non-physical, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (i.e., morally perfect) creator-God worshipped by many theologically orthodox Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Let’s call the proposition that a God of this sort exists “omni-theism”. One interesting question, then, is how best to argue for atheism understood locally as the proposition that omni-theism is false. It is often claimed that a good argument for atheism is impossible because, while it is at least possible to prove that something of a certain sort exists, it is impossible to prove that nothing of that sort exists. One reason to reject this claim is that the descriptions of some kinds of objects are self-contradictory. For example, we can prove that no circular square exists because such an object would have to be both circular and non-circular, which is impossible. Thus, one way to argue for the nonexistence of the God of omni-theism (or “omni-God” for short) is to argue that such a God is an impossible object like a circular square.” ref 

“Many attempts have been made to construct such arguments. For example, it has been claimed that an omnibenevolent being would be impeccable and so incapable of wrongdoing, while an omnipotent being would be quite capable of doing things that would be wrong to do. There are, however, sophisticated and plausible replies to arguments like these. More importantly, even if such an argument succeeded, omni-theists could plausibly claim that, by “omnipotent”, they mean, not maximally powerful, but optimally powerful, where the optimal degree of power may not be maximal if maximal power rules out possessing the optimal degree of some other perfection like moral goodness. Similar problems face attempts to show that omni-theism must be false because it is incompatible with certain known facts about the world. Such arguments typically depend on detailed and contested interpretations of divine attributes like omnibenevolence.” ref 

“A very different approach is based on the idea that disproof need not be demonstrative. The goal of this approach is to show that the existence of an omni-God is so improbable that confident belief in the non-existence of such a God is justified. Two such arguments are discussed in detail below: the “low priors argument” and the “decisive evidence argument”. Each of these arguments employs the same specific strategy, which is to argue that some alternative hypothesis to omni-theism is many times more probable than omni-theism. This doesn’t imply that the alternative hypothesis is probably true, but it does imply that omni-theism is very probably false. In the case of the second argument, the alternative hypothesis (aesthetic deism) is arguably a form of theism, and even in the case of the first argument it is arguable that the alternative hypothesis (source physicalism) is compatible with some forms of theism (in particular ones in which God is an emergent entity). This is not a problem for either argument, however, precisely because both are arguments for local atheism instead of global atheism.” ref 

“The Low Priors Argument: The basic idea behind the low priors argument is that, even if the agnostic is right that, when it comes to God’s existence, the evidence is ambiguous or absent altogether, what follows is not that theism has a middling probability all things considered, but instead that theism is very probably false. This is said to follow because theism starts out with a very low probability before taking into account any evidence. (“Evidence” in this context refers to factors extrinsic to a hypothesis that raise or lower its probability.) Since ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect on that prior or intrinsic probability, the posterior or all-things-considered probability of theism is also very low. If, however, theism is very probably false, then atheism must be very probably true and this implies (according to the defender of the argument) that atheistic belief is justified.” ref  

“This sort of argument is very relevant to the issue of which of atheism and theism is the appropriate “default” position. If theism has a sufficiently low intrinsic probability, then atheism is arguably the correct default position in the sense that ambiguous or absent evidence will justify, not suspending judgment on the issue of God’s existence, but instead believing that God does not exist. This is why Le Poidevin’s argument for agnosticism includes, not just a premise asserting that the relevant evidence is ambiguous, but also one asserting that, at least in the case of versatile theism, we are in the dark when it comes to the issue of which of theism and atheism has a higher intrinsic probability. Unfortunately, much discussion of the issue of which position is the correct “default position” or of who has the “burden of proof” gets sidetracked by bad analogies to Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, and Bertrand Russell’s famous china teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun. The low priors argument implicitly addresses this important issue in a much more sophisticated and promising way.” ref 

“In the version of the low priors argument formulated below, the basic approach described above is improved by comparing omni-theism, not simply to its denial, but instead to a more specific atheistic hypothesis called “source physicalism”. Unlike ontological physicalism, source physicalism is a claim about the source of mental entities, not about their nature. Source physicalists, whether they are ontological physicalists or ontological dualists, believe that the physical world existed before the mental world and caused the mental world to come into existence, which implies that all mental entities are causally dependent on physical entities. Further, even if they are ontological dualists, source physicalists need not claim that mental entities never cause physical entities or other mental entities, but they must claim that there would be no mental entities were it not for the prior existence (and causal powers) of one or more physical entities. The argument proceeds as follows:

• (1)The total evidence does not favor omni-theism over source physicalism.
• (2)Source physicalism is many times more probable intrinsically than omni-theism.

It follows from (1) and (2) that

• (3)Source physicalism is many times more probable than omni-theism.

It follows from (3) that

• (4)Omni-theism is very probably false.

It follows from (4) that

• (5)Atheism (understood here as the denial of omni-theism) is very probably true.

Only the argument’s two premises—steps (1) and (2)—are controversial. The other steps in the argument all clearly follow from previous steps.” ref 

“A thorough examination of the arguments for and against premise (1) is obviously impossible here, but it is worth mentioning that a defense of this premise need not claim that the known facts typically thought by natural theologians to favor omni-theism over competing hypotheses like source physicalism have no force. Instead, it could be claimed that whatever force they have is offset at least to some significant degree by more specific facts favoring source physicalism over omni-theism. Natural theologians routinely ignore these more specific facts and thus appear to commit what might be called “the fallacy of understated evidence”. More precisely, the point is this. Even when natural theologians successfully identify some general fact about a topic that is more probable given omni-theism than given source physicalism, they ignore other more specific facts about that same topic, facts that, given the general fact, appear to be significantly more probable given source physicalism than given omni-theism.” ref 

“For example, even if omni-theism is supported by the general fact that the universe is complex, one should not ignore the more specific fact, discovered by scientists, that underlying this complexity at the level at which we experience the universe, is a much simpler early universe from which this complexity arose, and also a much simpler contemporary universe at the micro-level, one consisting of a relatively small number of different kinds of particles all of which exist in one of a relatively small number of different states. In short, it is important to take into account, not just the general fact that the universe that we directly experience with our senses is extremely complex, but also the more specific fact that two sorts of hidden simplicity within the universe can explain that complexity. Given that a complex universe exists, this more specific fact is exactly what one would expect on source physicalism, because, as the best natural theologians (e.g., Swinburne 2004) say, the complexity of the universe cries out for explanation in terms of something simpler. There is, however, no reason at all to expect this more specific fact on omni-theism since, if those same natural theologians are correct, then a simple God provides a simple explanation for the observed complexity of the universe whether or not that complexity is also explained by any simpler mediate physical causes.” ref 

“Another example concerns consciousness. Its existence really does seem to be more likely given omni-theism than given source physicalism (and thus to raise the ratio of the probability of omni-theism to the probability of source physicalism). But we know a lot more about consciousness than just that it exists. We also know, thanks in part to the relatively new discipline of neuroscience, that conscious states in general and even the very integrity of our personalities, not to mention the apparent unity of the self, are dependent to a very high degree on physical events occurring in the brain. Given the general fact that consciousness exists, we have reason on source physicalism that we do not have on theism to expect these more specific facts. Given theism, it would not be surprising at all if our minds were more independent of the brain than they in fact are. After all, if omni-theism is true, then at least one mind, God’s, does not depend at all on anything physical. Thus, when the available evidence about consciousness is fully stated, it is far from clear that it significantly favors omni-theism.” ref 

“Similar problems threaten to undermine appeals to fine-tuning—that is, appeals to the fact that a number of apparently independent physical parameters have values that, while not fixed by current physical theory, nevertheless happen to fall within a relatively narrow “life-permitting” range assuming no changes to other parameters. Arguably, given that fine-tuning is required for intelligent life and that an omni-God has reason to create intelligent life, we have more reason to expect fine-tuning on omni-theism than on source physicalism. Given such fine-tuning, however, it is far more surprising on omni-theism than on source physicalism that our universe is not teeming with intelligent life and that the most impressive intelligent organisms we know to exist are merely human: self-centered and aggressive primates who far too often kill, rape, and torture each other.” ref 

“In fairness to omni-theism, however, most of those humans are moral agents and many have religious experiences apparently of God. The problem is that, while the existence of moral agents is “predicted” by omni-theism better than by source physicalism, it is also true that, given their existence, the variety and frequency of easily avoidable conditions that promote morally bad behavior and that severely limit the freedom, agency, and autonomy of countless human beings are much more likely on source physicalism. And while religious experiences apparently of God are no doubt more to be expected if an omni-God exists than if human beings are the product of blind physical forces, it is also true that, given that such experiences do occur, various facts about their distribution that should be surprising to theists are exactly what one would expect on source physicalism, such as the fact that many people never have them and the fact that those who do have them almost always have either a prior belief in God or extensive exposure to a theistic religion. It seems, then, that when it comes to evidence favoring omni-theism over source physicalism, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Further, when combined with the fact that what we know about the level of well-being of sentient beings and the extent of their suffering is arguably vastly more probable on source physicalism than on theism, a very strong though admittedly controversial case for premise (1) can be made.” ref 

“What about premise (2)? Again, a serious case can be made for its truth. Such a case first compares source physicalism, not to omni-theism, but to its opposite, source idealism. Source idealists believe that the mental world existed before the physical world and caused the physical world to come into existence. This view is consistent with both ontological idealism and ontological dualism, and also with physical entities having both physical and mental effects. It entails, however, that all physical entities are, ultimately, causally dependent on one or more mental entities, and so is not consistent with ontological physicalism. The symmetry of source physicalism and source idealism is a good pro tanto reason to believe they are equally probable intrinsically. They are equally specific, they have the same ontological commitments, neither can be formulated more elegantly than the other, and each appears to be equally coherent and equally intelligible. They differ on the issue of what is causally dependent on what, but if Hume is right and causal dependence relations can only be discovered by observation and not a priori, then that won’t affect the intrinsic probabilities of the two hypotheses.” ref 

“Omni-theism, however, is a very specific version of source idealism; it entails that source idealism is true but goes far beyond source idealism by making a number of very specific claims about the sort of “mental world” that produced the physical world. For example, it adds the claim that a single mind created the physical universe and that this mind is not just powerful but specifically omnipotent and not just knowledgeable but specifically omniscient. In addition, it presupposes a number of controversial metaphysical and meta-ethical claims by asserting in addition that this being is both eternal and objectively morally perfect. If any of these specific claims and presuppositions is false, then omni-theism is false. Thus, omni-theism is a very specific and thus intrinsically very risky form of source idealism, and thus is many times less probable intrinsically than source idealism. Therefore, if, as argued above, source physicalism and source idealism are equally probable intrinsically, then it follows that premise (2) is true: source physicalism is many times more probable intrinsically than omni-theism.” ref 

“The Decisive Evidence Argument: Notice that the general strategy of the particular version of the low priors argument discussed above is to find an alternative to omni-theism that is much less specific than omni-theism (and partly for that reason much more probable intrinsically), while at the same time having enough content of the right sort to fit the totality of the relevant data at least as well as theism does. In other words, the goal is to find a runner like source physicalism that begins the race with a large head start and thus wins by a large margin because it runs the race for supporting evidence and thus for probability at roughly the same speed as omni-theism does. This doesn’t show that source physicalism is probable (a “large margin” in this context means a large ratio of one probability to another, not a large difference between the probabilities), because there may be even better runners in the race; it does, however, show that omni-theism loses the race by a large margin and thus is very probably false.” ref 

“An alternative strategy is to find a runner that begins the race tied with omni-theism, but runs the race for evidential support much faster than omni-theism does, thus once again winning the race by a margin that is sufficiently large for the rest of the argument to go through. A good name for an argument pursuing this second strategy is the “decisive evidence argument”. The choice of alternative hypothesis is crucial here just as it was in the low priors argument. One promising choice is “aesthetic deism”. (Another would be a more detailed version of source physicalism that, unlike source physicalism in general, makes the relevant data antecedently much more probable than theism does.) In order to help ensure that omni-theism and aesthetic deism begin the race at the same starting line—that is, have the same intrinsic probability—“aesthetic deism” is best defined in such a way that it is almost identical to omni-theism. Thus, it may be stipulated that, like omni-theism, aesthetic deism implies that an eternal, non-physical, omnipotent, and omniscient being created the physical world. The only difference, then, between the God of omni-theism and the deity of aesthetic deism is what motivates them. An omni-theistic God would be morally perfect and so strongly motivated by considerations of the well-being of sentient creatures. An aesthetic deistic God, on the other hand, would prioritize aesthetic goods over moral ones. While such a being would want a beautiful universe, perhaps the best metaphor here is not that of a cosmic artist, but instead that of a cosmic playwright: an author of nature who wants above all to write an interesting story.” ref 

“As everyone knows, good stories never begin with the line “and they lived happily ever after”, and that line is the last line of any story that contains it. Further, containing such a line is hardly necessary for a story to be good. If aesthetic deism is true, then it may very well be true that, “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merelyplayers” (emphasis added). In any case, the hypothesis of aesthetic deism makes “predictions” about the condition of sentient beings in the world that are very different from the ones that the hypothesis of omni-theism makes. After all, what makes a good story good is often some intense struggle between good and evil, and all good stories contain some mixture of benefit and harm. This suggests that the observed mixture of good and evil in our world decisively favors aesthetic deism over omni-theism. And if that’s right, then aesthetic deism pulls far ahead of omni-theism in the race for probability, thereby proving that omni-theism is very improbable.” ref 

Here is one possible formulation of this argument:

• (1)Aesthetic deism is at least as probable intrinsically as omni-theism.
• (2)The total evidence excluding “the data of good and evil” does not favor omni-theism over aesthetic deism.
• (3)Given the total evidence excluding the data of good and evil, the data of good and evil strongly favor aesthetic deism over omni-theism.

It follows from (1), (2), and (3) that

• (4)Aesthetic deism is many times more probable than omni-theism.

It follows from (4) that

• (5)Omni-theism is very probably false.

It follows from (5) that

• (6)Atheism (understood here as the denial of omni-theism) is very probably true.

Steps (4)–(6) of this argument are the same as steps (3)–(5) of the low priors argument except that “source physicalism” in step (3) of the low priors argument is replaced by “aesthetic deism” in step (4) of the decisive evidence argument. This makes no difference as far as the inference from step (4) to step (5) is concerned. That inference, like the inferences from steps (1)–(3) to step (4) and from step (5) to step (6), is clearly correct. The key question, then, is whether premises (1), (2), and (3) are all true.” ref 

“In spite of the nearly complete overlap between omni-theism and aesthetic deism, Richard Swinburne would challenge premise (1) on the grounds that aesthetic deism, unlike omni-theism, must posit a bad desire to account for why the deity does not do what is morally best. Omni-theism need not do this, according to Swinburne, because what is morally best just is what is overall best, and thus an omniscient being will of necessity do what is morally best so long as it has no desires other than the desires it has simply by virtue of knowing what the best thing to do is in any given situation. This challenge depends, however, on a highly questionable motivational intellectualism: it succeeds only if merely believing that an action is good entails a desire to do it. On most theories of motivation, there is a logical gap between the intellect and desire. If such a gap exists, then it would seem that omni-theism is no more probable intrinsically than aesthetic deism.” ref  

“It’s hard to think of a plausible challenge to premise (2) because, at least when it comes to the usual evidence taken to favor theism over competing hypotheses like naturalism, aesthetic deism accounts for that evidence at least as well as omni-theism does. For example, a deity interested in good narrative would want a world that is complex and yet ordered, that contains beauty, consciousness, intelligence, and moral agency. Perhaps there is more reason to expect the existence of libertarian free will on omni-theism than on aesthetic deism; but unless one starts from the truth of omni-theism, there seems to be little reason to believe that we have such freedom. And even if one takes seriously introspective or other non-theological evidence for libertarian free will, it is not difficult to construct a “de-odicy” here: a good explanation in terms of aesthetic deism either of the existence of libertarian free will or of why there is apparently strong but ultimately misleading evidence for its existence. For example, if open theists are right that not even an omniscient being can know with certainty what (libertarian) free choices will be made in the future, then aesthetic deism could account for libertarian free will and other sorts of indeterminacy by claiming that a story with genuine surprises is better than one that is completely predictable. Alternatively, what might be important for the story is only that the characters think they have free will, not that they really have it.” ref 

“Finally, there is premise (3), which asserts that the data of good and evil decisively favors aesthetic deism over theism. In this context, the “data of good and evil” include everything we know about how sentient beings, including humans, are benefitted or harmed. A full discussion of this premise is not possible here, but recognition of its plausibility appears to be as old as the problem of evil itself. Consider, for example, the Book of Job, whose protagonist, a righteous man who suffers horrifically, accuses God of lacking sufficient commitment to the moral value of justice. The vast majority of commentators agree that God does not directly respond to Job’s charge. Instead, speaking out of the whirlwind, He describes His design of the cosmos and of the animal kingdom in a way clearly intended to emphasize His power and the grandeur of His creation. Were it not for theological worries about God’s moral perfection, the most natural interpretation of this part of the story would be either that God agrees with Job’s charge that He is unjust or that God denies that Job can sensibly apply terms like “just” and “unjust” to Him because He and Job are not members of any shared moral community. This is why Job’s first response to God’s speech (before capitulating in his second response) is just to refuse to repeat his (unanswered) accusation. On this interpretation, the creator that confronts Job is not the God he expected and definitely not the God of omni-theism, but rather a being much more like the deity of aesthetic deism.” ref 

“Those who claim that a God might allow evil because it is the inevitable result of the universe being governed by laws of nature also lend support, though unintentionally, to the idea that, if there is an author of nature, then that being is more likely motivated by aesthetic concerns than moral ones. For example, it may be that producing a universe governed by a few laws expressible as elegant mathematical equations is an impressive accomplishment, not just because of the wisdom and power required for such a task, but also because of the aesthetic value of such a universe. That value may very well depend, however, on the creator’s choosing not to intervene regularly in nature to protect His creatures from harm.” ref 

“Much of the aesthetic value of the animal kingdom may also depend on its being the result of a long evolutionary process driven by mechanisms like natural selection. As Darwin (1859) famously said in the last lines of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” ref  

“Unfortunately, such a process, if it is to produce sentient life, may also entail much suffering and countless early deaths. One questionable assumption of some natural order theodicists is to think that such connections between aesthetic goods and suffering provide a moral justification for God’s allowing horrific suffering. It is arguably far more plausible that in such a scenario the value of preventing horrendous suffering would, from a moral point of view, far outweigh the value of regularity, sublimity, and narrative. If so, then a morally perfect God would not trade the former for the latter though a deity motivated primarily by aesthetic reasons no doubt would. To summarize, nearly everyone agrees that the world contains both goods and evils. Pleasure and pain, love and hate, achievement and failure, flourishing and languishing, and virtue and vice all exist in great abundance. In spite of that, some see signs of cosmic teleology. Those who defend the version of the decisive evidence argument stated above need not deny the teleology. They do need to show that it is far easier to make sense of the “strange mixture of good and ill, which appears in life” (Hume Dialogues, XI, 14) when that teleology is interpreted as amoral instead of as moral (cf. Mulgan 2015 and Murphy 2017) and in particular when it is interpreted as directed towards aesthetic ends instead of towards moral ends.” ref 

An Argument against Agnosticism –  Paul Draper (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

“The topic in section 4 was Le Poidevin’s argument for the truth of a modest form of agnosticism. In this section, an argument for the falsity of a more ambitious form of agnosticism will be examined. Because the sort of agnosticism addressed in this section is more ambitious than the sort defended by Le Poidevin, it is conceivable that both arguments succeed in establishing their conclusions. In Le Poidevin’s argument, the term “agnosticism” refers to the position that neither versatile theism nor global atheism is known to be true. In this section, “agnosticism” refers to the position that neither the belief that omni-theism is true nor the belief that it is false is rationally permissible. This form of agnosticism is more ambitious because knowledge is stronger (in the logical sense) than rational permissibility: it can be rationally permissible to believe propositions that are not known to be true, but a proposition cannot be known to be true by someone who is not rationally permitted to believe it. Thus, an appropriate name for this form of agnosticism is “strong agnosticism”. Another difference concerns the object of the two forms of agnosticism. The agnosticism in Le Poidevin’s argument concerned versatile theism versus global atheism. In this section, the target is omni-theism versus the local atheistic position that omni-theism is false. The previous section focused on two arguments for the conclusion that this form of local atheism is very probably true. In this section, the question is whether or not that conclusion, if established, could ground a successful argument against strong agnosticism.” ref  

Such an argument can be formulated as follows:

• (1)Atheism (understood here as the denial of omni-theism) is very probably true.
• (2)If atheism is very probably true, then atheistic belief is rationally permissible.

It follows from (1) and (2) that

• (3)Atheistic belief is rationally permissible.
• (4)If strong agnosticism (about omni-theism) is true (that is, if withholding judgment about the truth or falsity of omni-theism is rationally required), then atheistic belief is not rationally permissible.

It follows from (3) and (4) that

• (5)Strong agnosticism (about omni-theism) is false.

Premise (1) was defended in section 6, premise (4) is true by the definition of “strong agnosticism”, and steps (3) and (5) follow from earlier steps by modus ponens and modus tollens, respectively. This leaves premise (2), the premise that, if atheism is very probably true, then atheistic belief is rationally permissible.” ref  

“One might attempt to defend this premise by claiming that the probabilities in premise (2) are rational credences and hence the truth of the so-called Lockean thesis (Foley 1992) justifies (2):

It is rational for a person S to believe a proposition P if and only if it is rational for S’s credence in P to be sufficiently high to make S’s attitude towards P one of belief.” ref 

“The Lockean thesis, however, is itself in need of justification. Fortunately, though, nothing so strong as the Lockean thesis is needed to defend premise (2). For one thing, all the defender of (2) needs is an “if”, not an “if and only if”. Also, the defender of (2) need not equate, as the Lockean thesis does, the attitude of belief with having a high credence. Thus, all that is required is the following more modest thesis (call it “T”):

• (T)If it is rationally permissible for S’s credence in a proposition P to be (very) high, then it is rationally permissible for S to believe P.

Even this more modest thesis, however, is controversial, because adopting it commits one to the position that rational (i.e., rationally permissible) belief is not closed under conjunction. In other words, it commits one to the position that it is possible for each of a number of beliefs to be rational even though the additional belief that those beliefs are all true is not rational.” ref 

“To see why this is so, imagine that a million lottery tickets have been sold. Each player purchased only a single ticket, and exactly one of the players is certain to win. Now imagine further that an informed observer has a distinct belief about each of the million individual players that that particular player will lose. According to thesis T, each of those million beliefs is rational. For example, if Sue is one of the players, then according to T the observer’s belief that Sue will lose is rational because it is rational for the observer to have a (very) high credence in the proposition that Sue will lose. Since, however, it is certain that someone will win, it is also rational for the observer to believe that some player will win. It is not rational, however, to have contradictory beliefs, so it is not rational for the observer to believe that no player will win. This implies, however, that rational belief is not closed under conjunction, for the proposition that no player will win just is the conjunction of all of the propositions that say of some individual player that they will lose.” ref 

“Defenders of premise (2) will claim, very plausibly, that the implication of T that rational belief is not closed under conjunction is completely innocuous. Isn’t it obvious, for example, that it would not be rational for a fallible human being to believe that all of their many beliefs are true, even if each of those beliefs were rational? Others, however, regard the conclusion that rational belief is not closed under conjunction as unacceptable and will for that reason reject premise (2). So even if it can be shown that omni-theism is very probably false, it still won’t be obvious to everyone that it is rationally permissible to be a local atheist about omni-theism and thus it still won’t be obvious to everyone that strong agnosticism about omni-theism is false.” ref  

A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?

Dear Damien, 

During an internet search for people interested in “agnosticism” I came across your text “Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology”. Since I am an agnostic, who is quite interested in epistemology, I would like to ask, what “Standard Epistemology” is. In academic epistemology one could not state that “Knowledge is Justified True Believe” without mentioning the so-called “Gettier-cases”. My agnosticism, which I delineated in a German essay called “Wahrhaftiger Glaube”, is based on critical epistemology. As atheists often deploy Russel’s “celestial teapot” against agnostics, it is also discussed briefly there. The problem with Atheism is not that it rejects the doctrines of widely known organized religions, which partly comprise tenets inconsistent with experiences or are at least lacking sufficient justification, but that it usually is accompanied by ideological naturalism, which likewise is an unjustified metaphysical assumption. Recently I tried to translate my deliberations into English. The text titled “Believing veraciously” is available by using the links at the bottom of this mail. I would be grateful, if you could make time to have a glance at it and give me a shorthand critical feedback. Thank You so much in advance!

Best regards, Johannes Weg

Files (PDF, ePub, html etc.) with a rough slightly revised second edition of the English translation of my text titled “Believing veraciously” in ZIP-folder may be downloaded by using the following link:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1U4DE2TNcfxX3_uWuW6D5fM-u_x6knHAx
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801504.us.archive.org/9/items/Weg_BV2/Weg_BV2_html/Weg_BV2.html

A ZIP-folder with divers file formats (PDF, ePub, html etc.) of the bilingual version with the juxtaposition of the slightly revised second edition of “Believing veraciously” and the 21st edition of “Wahrhaftiger Glaube” is available here:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=13QAeTrb-SxZTgKXv2qZFxGz5-RW8MPMW
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/Weg_BV2_WG21/Weg_BV2_WG21_bilingual_html/Weg_BV2_WG21_bilingual.html

German files (PDF, ePub, html etc.) of the 21st edition of “Wahrhaftiger Glaube” in a ZIP-folder may be downloaded by using the following link:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=13QAeTrb-SxZTgKXv2qZFxGz5-RW8MPMW
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801503.us.archive.org/10/items/Weg_WG21/Weg_WG21_html/Weg_WG21.html

The ZIP-folders also contain explanations about the suitability of the divers file formats, since it is important to read annotations within the foot-/end-notes (although many of them just consist of references). 

Dear Johannes, 

I am far from the standard atheist or atheist philosopher, so my answers and thinking are my own. I appreciate your inquiry. Epistemology is a way of knowing or understanding and agnostic thinking is but a claim of not knowing but saying it is making no claim, a clear violation of basic logic as well as you have agnostic thinking trying to push a non-epistemology as an epistemology, really? There is in logic only “A” or “not A”, so, no god or a god. Thus, agnosticism is not sound in logic, trying to profess an excluded middle position. I logically challenge the three letter noise termed god as to what one means by the three letters god and then how they can claim to know this with accuracy as not one term god is universal with a valid accuracy even within the same church of the same faith, and why well logic would make that clear to be something made up, so, not real and changes with the people telling it. It is also invalid as it tries to act as f you cannot prove a negative you can, so this is a belief stance not shared by experts in logic, who do hold that you can disprove a negative, so agnostic in this fails like all agnostic pseudo-philosophy offered to support this invalid notion that agnosticism is logical, it is not. Also, may I remind you that knowledge as well as certainty are epistemic properties of belief and thus are not separate as agnosticism seems to imply. To me, I feel like agnosticism is the rejection of the supremacy of reason, wishing to add skepticism in its place, which I fully reject.

Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach

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 aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by 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.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right 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

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.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science is understanding what is, while religion is wishing on what is not.

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*

 Justified / True / Beliefs

Justified?

* To established justification, I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.

“Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or another epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref

True?

*For the true part, I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.

“The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.” Ref

Beliefs?

*For the beliefs part, I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.

“The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief.” Ref I was asked about The Gettier Problem, well, to me Edmund Gettier only points out that more than just JTB is needed as there may be some beliefs outside of simply JTB which I do, I feel all stages need analysis and support not just some simple use of JTB. With my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach, I try to show how to build accuracy in beliefs, of course, there are always many non-accurate ways beliefs may be arrived at, analyze or maintained, as well as updated or remove beliefs if found to be in error. We conceptualize epistemological attitudes and beliefs as components of metacognitive knowledge. As such, they serve an important function in regulating the use of epistemic strategies such as knowledge-based validation of information and checking arguments for internal consistency. Ref  Epistemic Attitudes: Belief, Disbelief and Suspended Judgement. click here is an interesting but complicated article on this subject. To me, when assessing belief, one should think about reliabilism.I usually try to use a reliabilism approach to epistemology which emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factors. The reliability theme appears in theories of knowledge, of justification, and of evidence. “Reliabilism” is sometimes used broadly to refer to any theory that emphasizes truth-getting or truth indicating properties. Ref

Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?

Agnostic vs Ignostic?

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, What is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about, thus, to me, making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Kurtz, New Skepticism, 220: “Ignosticism or igtheism, finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.”.

“Ignosticism or igtheism, is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition, such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.” Ref 

God fanatics seem to enjoy spouting unfounded claims thinking they have proven something they never do. How do you claim this as you first must prove a god something which to date there is no evidence of a god anything just empty wishful thinking confusion offered as clear truth to which its only illusions, the phantoms of hope-filled indoctrination learned often as little children, before they had a chance to reason then they hold these god-something lies as true never hardly thinking to question the evidence devoid assertions appealing to the bogus theory of revelation and faith which prove only humans have unchecked imaginations they keep thinking to create some other world reality that is just not real. And that is just getting started with the issues then you must prove god is even understands, is involved, or is in any way necessary to assume to understand reality, but it does not stop there as you must demonstrate which god story are you appealing to and how do you know that the claims attributed to the god fantasy you favor?

Theism is foolishness given some kind of undue credibility it never deserved. Theism seems to simply take older unjustifiable god myths or unjustifiable god themes, acting as if long ago magic was real when it never was nor do they have any evidence to start contemplating the claims as anything but unsupported with real justifications. Life beyond the mental slavery of god beliefs. I speak out against god myths and the harm such lies can hold. I may at times offend believers but, No one has the right to not be offended. Beliefs in gods don’t offend me per say, they sadden me to see others in the mental bondage of a life not their own. For to have a god belief is almost always to have a master belief one who is over you, one who you must live for or suffer. Belief in gods is often a life battle against guilt and shame. I care too much about others to stand by and let them continue a life of mental slavery and say nothing when such fears are lies and a free life of their own choosing free of god masters is available.

I do not tell others what to believe as it is their self-right but will explain there is a better way. Any defined concept of god(s) offered is making stuff up out of nowhere and from nothing more than runaway imagination, wild misunderstanding, or outright lies. To say one knows God is just pretending to know things you do not know, nor have any reason to claim to know. As there is no tangible substance or evidence to access god(s) so all attributes are thus limited to baseless made-up fantasy. 

I Am a Strong Atheist: “I am psychologically certain god(s) don’t exist”

I am psychologically certain, gods don’t exist,  and this is largely do to the understanding that a god devoid reality does exist, with epistemic certainty of scientific realism, and the naturalistic facts. So science, on every level, on every test, by every scientist, everywhere, all over the world, and throughout all recorded time, generates only godless magic-devoid Nature. To presume, any nonnatralism realities on to the real world, is to be a denialist to reality as much as an error in scientific thinking. Like knowledge, certainty is an epistemic property of beliefs. In a derivative way, certainty is also an epistemic property of subjects. = Certainty and Probability

Nonnatralism is the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, including supernatural or magical.

To me, a strong atheist is: 

“Strongest Explicit Atheism: “positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists assert that it is false that any deities exist or at least one, many deities don’t exist or a strong conscious rejection of belief, one or any deities some could call this antitheist atheism.” 

Some may see this as gnostic atheism, in his new book, “Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” Aron Ra makes clear, he is a gnostic atheist. Which I call it everything but that word, preferring positive” / “strong” / “hard” atheists. Alternatively to gnostic atheist, I may say I am an ignostic atheist or anti-agnostic thinking. To learn more on this check out Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism or My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking 

When asked whether they believe in the existence of one or more gods and/or goddesses, Theists will answer in the affirmative; strong Atheists like me will say no. Agnostics often cannot give a straight “Yes” or “No” answer. Agnostics might respond with one of the following (Weak Theism or Weak Atheism): 

*Weak Atheism: I don’t know. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: The Gods that various believers worship are like unicorns: they are obviously fictional creations of humanity. But, who knows? They might actually exist.

*Weak Atheism: There is no way to know, but perhaps someone will find a proof or disproof in the future. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: There will never be any way to know. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: The question is meaningless. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: I don’t know but will lead my life with the assumption that no God exists. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: I will have to withhold my opinion until God, if he exists, decides to make his presence known. Rearranging, say, 10,000 stars in the sky to read “I AM” would be a great start. Even recreating an amputated leg would be a strong indicator. But, of course, neither has ever happened. (So they don’t believe theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge. (So they don’t believe theism and thus are atheists)

*Weak Atheism: I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, either now or in the future. (So they don’t believe in theism and thus are atheists)

-Weak Theism: I doubt it, but cannot be sure God doesn’t exist.

-Weak Theism: I think so, but cannot be positive that God exists.

-Weak Theism: I don’t know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist — perhaps because of the rewards I would receive if God does exist.

-Weak Theism: I think that God exists, but have no proof.

-Weak Theism: I worship a god (or a god and goddess, or a goddess, or some combination of god(s) and goddess(es) but cannot prove that they exist.

-Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.

-Weak Theism: Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, neither now, nor in the future.

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

40 of The Best Atheist Arguments Against God/religion

All major religions seem sexist or bigoted in one way or another, not to mention that they promote pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and pseudomorality. So they are all against humanity to me.

1. All religions are sexist, All creationism is pseudoscience, All religions are pseudohistory, & All religions use pseudomorality

Therefore, Stop Believing in Supernatural or the Possibility of Magic & We All Should Reject the Supernatural

“Maby god is “Conscious, thinking universe-wide” Quantum Artificial Intelligence, real operating at supernumerary levels of capacity compared to we small sparks. Evolving since the dawn of time”. Operating in the “5th Dimension” outside Space-Time-Continuum. Giordano, Einstein, Jung, and Planck understood.” – Agnostic thinker

My response, Conscious thinking universe, No. “Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.” ref Claims without substance are what that nonsense is that you wrote there. Fifth Dimension? “Current scientific consensus is that there are four dimensions, an unperceivable fifth dimension is still not even a universally agreed-upon definition for it.” ref

“Planck, Newton & others were nonsensical then. Remarkable it will be Science. Not religion. “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Agnostic thinker

My response, There is no accepted science of “god-something” and it is delusion or dilutional thinking to assume otherwise. You can mislabel science to call it a “god-something” but it is just more magical thinking and mysticism theorizing, not facts and to state, it otherwise is misinformed and employs unscientific assumptions.

Examples of Forces

In nature, the fundamental forces are

• gravity
• weak nuclear force
• strong nuclear force
• electromagnetic force
• residual force ref

“Best to stay open-minded. A great writer explained there can be “scientific evidence” in full until it is necessary. Otherwise this would be a planetary police state. The “necessary” is a planet now on the way to destruction in a Universe of 2 Trillion galaxies.” – Agnostic thinker

My response, You are not open-minded, making unjustified claims of truth.

“But Damien, Souls are real because energy does not die!”

My response, That is a logical fallacy as it is not a reasoned jump in logic. Energy leaves all once alive bodies by dissipating heat in the environment then is gone as the once related energy in a now dead body. 

I classify Animism (animated ‘spirit‘ or “supernatural” perspectives).

I see all religious people as at least animists, so, all religions have at least some amount, kind, or expression of animism as well.

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 other religions as all other religions have at least some amount, kind, or expression of animism. 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 it 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 even have religious friends, as I am not a bigot.

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 passed, so we must act with passion, because life is over just like that. I am just another fellow dignity being. May I be a good human. 

My Antireligionism?

I will grant you some religious mythology is quite interesting but I never forget it is simple stories of hope, fear, and magical thinking arising from human ignorance fueled by imagination and presto people believe in things never seen. I hate religion as I hate harm, oppression, bigotry, and love equality, self-ownership, self-empowerment, self-actualization including self-mastery, as well as truth and not only does religion lie, it is a conspiracy theory of reality. I know that god-something is is an unjustified and debunked claim of super supernatural when no supernatural any has ever been found to even start such claims.

I don’t think antireligionism is really anti-friendly-atheism, as it can involve being friendly to people even if it is harsh to religion, positive antireligionism or Anti-Accommodationism is attacking bad thinking and bad behaviors, not just people who believe. Not just an atheist and antitheist, I am a proud anti-religionist. I have greater confidence in science as they often admit errors and I have greater mistrust of religion as they often refuse to accept or admit errors.

What I do not like about religion in one idea, religions as a group are “Conspiracy Theories of Reality,” usually filled with Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory, along with Pseudomorality, and other harmful aspects. An antireligionist generally means opposition to religion, this includes all, every religion or pseudo-religion, YES, I am an atheist and antitheist, who is “Anti” ALL RELIGIONS. But I am against the ideas, not people. We regrettably pay our life debt in our time lost living one moment at a time which seem to group together into what we call a life, so live as there just went another lost moment.

“But Damien, Souls are real because energy does not die!”

My response, That is a logical fallacy as it is not a reasoned jump in logic. Energy leaves all once alive bodies by dissipating heat in the environment then is gone as the once related energy in a now dead body.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

1. “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.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tutelary deity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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

“These ideas are my speculations from the evidence.”

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

Sky Father/Sky God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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