Axiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism

Axiological Atheism: Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral argument driven atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, and secular humanism 

As such axiological atheism’s ethically reasoned antitheism & antireligionism is constructive and pro-humanity. We who believe we are thinking rational, leading to opposition or hate of religion may that be limited to the nonfactual or oppressive ideology and not the people. Beyond just not being something lets be something, rational thinking should challenge myths but also prove our love for humanity and care for all living beings. In most cases, Axiological atheism would assert the traditional concept of “Atheism” answers only a single question: Is there a creator god or not? That is an important question, but if your answer is “no”, it is only a starting point and not a way of life.

You may have reached that viewpoint based on your respect for logic, evidence, science,and personal experience which too are vital values. Yet, after you have reached that initial “no god” answer, all the other important questions in life, all the options for mental and emotional wholeness and social and environmental harmony, ethics and morality, personal fulfillment, social values, philosophy and psychology remain open. That is where “Axiological Atheism” holds a connection to both further challenging the god concept and devaluing religion and adding a value meaning and ethical axiological ideology to guide universally desirable secular ethical way of being or a value driven life lived in this reality.

What is Axiology, Formal Axiology & Axiological Profiling?

Axiology is the name for “value theory.” It is derived from the Greek word “axios” meaning “worth.” Formal axiology is the logic-based science of value anchored in a “hierarchy of meaning” from the most meaningful or richest value to the most destructive or greatest value loss. The logic specifies 18 different levels of richness. Hartman’s “hierarchy of value” is the mathematical measuring standard for human evaluative judgment and decision-making in life and in all social sectors of life in our culture.

When people make value judgments, they use both their mental and emotional capacities to arrive at their decision. Some people have very solid and reliable decision-making abilities – while others routinely make wrong or inaccurate choices. Axiological profiles measure the quality of the respondent’s judgment and decision-making by gauging both their mental clarity and their emotional orientation & conditioning.

Dr. Leon Pomeroy in his book, The New Science of Axiological Psychology (Pomeroy, 2005), has shown that formal axiology is also empirically valid. Thus, in our axiological assessment profiles we have the solid support of both scientific methods: the deductive logic-based axiomatic method and the inductive, empirical method. Dr. Pomeroy spent over 20 years collecting statistical data for his book cross-nationally, from numerous and diverse eastern and western countries and cultures, and proving that cultures all over the world make value judgments in the same way.

Neuro‐Axiology: merges Neuroscience understanding how the brain works with Axiology’s formal science that makes possible the objective measurement of value how humans make value judgments. (You will ALWAYS choose what you think adds the MOST value to your life.) Accepting the standard of neuroscientific model of consciousness means that everything we think, feel, remember, and do is a function of the brain. This includes the emotion of empathy. We are not empathic because it makes sense to be empathic – meaning that most humans don’t simply reason their way to empathy. Nor do we simply learn empathy (although brain development is an interactive process with the environment, so we can’t rule out environmental influences). For the most part, we have empathy because our brains are wired with empathy as a specific function.

Like every function of the body you can think of, if it is not essential for survival then some subset of the human population likely has a disorder or even absence of this function. We recognize the biological limits of empathy or absence of empathy as the disorder, psychopathy. It is estimated that about 1% of the general population are psychopaths, while about 20-30% of the US prison population. Dr. Robert S. Hartman discovered that people hold back a 40% latent reserve of cooperation and productivity until they have been valued as human beings.
Axiology is the science of how humans value and make value judgments as well as how they relate to ethics (not moral values often religious or culture relative).

The basics of Axiology are in its 3 Classes of Value and 6 “Advisors”. The following are the Classes of Value:
1. Systemic: plans, rules, best practices, procedures; ideas or expectations
2. Extrinsic: practical or situational; measurable, tracked; tasks (tangible)
3. Intrinsic: personal or transcendent; infinitely valuable; irreplaceable; human beings (intangibles)

The following are the 6 Advisors which consist of 2 views of one inward and one outward and one must remember people are neither their thoughts nor their advisors.
1. World View: Empathy-Intuition “people”, Practical Judgment “tasks, & Systems Thinking “plans & ideas”
2. Self View: Self-Esteem “who you are”, Role Awareness “what you do,” & Self Direction “where you go”.

The word “Axiological” (to the term “Axiological atheism” is meant to denote an atheistic “Value” rejection of the existence of gods or supreme beings and in favor of a “higher absolute” such as humanity or universal ethical principles. The perception of moral obligation removed from ethical sensitivity to universal justice [is] thus unintelligible as “higher absolute”. As a form of atheism, Axiological favors humanity as the absolute source of holistic ethics and care values which permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to a god’s moral obligation which is anti-humanity and not needing to connect to equal justice. Axiological Atheism can be seen as ethically reasoned antitheism and antireligionism where it is all about axiology values that underlie the universal truths. A few examples of universal truths such as there is no such thing as just rape, no honorable thoughtful unwanted torture, and no just humanistic caring abuse of the innocent. You can offer excuses but the true values violations hold true. Axiologists are broadly concerned with all forms of value including aesthetic values, ethical values, and epistemic values. In a narrow sense, axiologists are concerned with what is intrinsically valuable or worthwhile—what is desirable for its own sake. All axiological issues are necessarily connected to ontological and epistemological assumptions.

Axiology in Axiological Atheism can be seen as applying science of morality, referring to its ethically naturalistic views basing morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris’ science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). “Science” should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. The term “science of morality” is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species.

The axiological movement emerges from the phenomenological method. The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue against Kant, that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. They emphasize the extent to which it is through emotions and feelings that human beings discern values. The notion of right action is understood derivatively in terms of the values which emotions reveal. Evolutionary psychology seems to offer an account of the evolution of our “moral sense” (conscience) that dispenses with any reference to objective values. Its apparent elimination of objective values on the grounds of their being unneeded in explanation has led the skeptical writings of J.L. Mackie and Michael Ruse. By contrast, Robert Nozick has resisted this interpretation of evolution (1981) arguing that an evolutionary account of the moral sense can no more dispense with values than an evolutionary account of perception can dispense with perceptual objects objectively present in the world. Axiologists in contemporary ethics are Platonists such as Iris Murdoch and Neo-Kantian theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick.

Tenets of Secular Ethics

Despite the width and diversity of their philosophical views, secular ethicists generally share one or more principles:
• Human beings, through their ability to empathize, are capable of determining ethical grounds.
• Human beings, through logic and reason, are capable of deriving normative principles of behavior.
• Human beings have the moral responsibility to ensure that societies and individuals act based on these ethical principles.
• Societies should, if at all possible, advance from a less ethical, less empathy, and unjust form to a more ethical, more empathy and just form.

Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.

The problems of axiology fall into four main groups, namely, those concerning (1) the nature of value, (2) the types of value, (3) the criterion of value, and (4) the metaphysical status of value.

(1) The nature of value experience. Is valuation fulfillment of desire (voluntarism: Spinoza, Ehrenfels), pleasure (hedonism: Epicurus, Bentham, Meinong), interest (Perry), preference (Martineau), pure rational will (formalism: Stoics, Kant, Royce), apprehension of tertiary qualities (Santayana), synoptic experience of the unity of personality (personalism: T. H. Green, Bowne), any experience that contributes to enhanced life (evolutionism: Nietzsche), or “the relation of things as means to the end or consequence actually reached” (pragmatism, instrumentalism: Dewey).

(2) The types of value. Most axiologists distinguish between intrinsic (consummatory) values (ends), prized for their own sake, and instrumental (contributory) values (means), which are causes (whether as economic goods or as natural events) of intrinsic values. Most intrinsic values are also instrumental to further value experience; some instrumental values are neutral or even disvalued intrinsically. A few recognized as intrinsic values are the (morally) good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy. Values of play, of work, of association, and of bodily well-being are also acknowledged. Some (with Montague) question whether the true is properly to be regarded as a value, since some truth is disvalued, some neutral; but love of truth, regardless of consequences, seems to establish the value of truth. There is disagreement about whether the holy (religious value) is a unique type (Schleiermacher, Otto), or an attitude toward other values (Kant, Höffding), or a combination of the two (Hocking). There is also disagreement about whether the variety of values is irreducible (pluralism) or whether all values are rationally related in a hierarchy or system (Plato, Hegel, Sorley), in which values interpenetrate or coalesce into a total experience.

(3) The criterion of value. The standard for testing values is influenced by both psychological and logical theory. Hedonists find the standard in the quantity of pleasure derived by the individual (Aristippus) or society (Bentham). Intuitionists appeal to an ultimate insight into preference (Martineau, Brentano). Some idealists recognize an objective system of rational norms or ideals as criterion (Plato, Windelband), while others lay more stress on rational wholeness and coherence (Hegel, Bosanquet, Paton) or inclusiveness (T. H. Green). Naturalists find biological survival or adjustment (Dewey) to be the standard. Despite differences, there is much in common in the results of the application of these criteria.

(4) The metaphysical status of value. What is the relation of values to the facts investigated by natural science (Koehler), of Sein to Sollen (Lotze, Rickert), of human experience of value to reality independent of man (Hegel, Pringle-Pattlson, Spaulding)? There are three main answers: subjectivism (value is entirely dependent on and relative to human experience of it: so most hedonists, naturalists, positivists); logical objectivism (values are logical essences or subsistences, independent of their being known, yet with no existential status or action in reality); metaphysical objectivism (values — or norms or ideals — are integral, objective, and active constituents of the metaphysically real: so theists, absolutists, and certain realists and naturalists like S. Alexander and Wieman).

Axiological atheism can be seen as antitheist and takes a very strong unsympathetic line by saying no being, of any sort, is worthy of the name of god and demanding worship a “moral obligation,” to his values alone which demonstrates an axiological disapproval of their value to be worshipped. No being deserves to be god because they have not provided irrefutable proof nor have done anything to prove separation from the natural world which all beings are part of.

Morality is a biological adaptation. It is likewise natural as fully detailed in the book “The Moral Lives of Animals” where morality or ethical conscience is an evolutionary persuasion seen in how wild elephants walking along a trail stop and spontaneously try to protect and assist a weak and dying fellow elephant. As well as in how laboratory rats, finding other rats caged nearby in distressing circumstances, proceed to rescue them. A chimpanzee in a zoo loses his own life trying to save an unrelated infant who has fallen into a watery moat. The examples above and many others, show that our fellow creatures have powerful impulses toward cooperation, generosity, and fairness. Yet, it is commonly held that we Homo sapiens are the only animals with a moral sense. This rigorous challenges that notion and shows the profound connections—the moral continuum—that link humans to many other species. Understanding the moral lives of animals offers new insight into our own.

Since the god concept in axiological atheism can only be likewise conceived as natural, it deserves no more value than a tree, human, or a black hole, if it was true. If the god concept is outside of nature, it has demonstrated no relevance or worth to the obviously natural world. If the god concept was outside of nature but found relevant over nature, it would be shown to be either willfully guilty for allowing harm or the direct creation of the harm. If the god concept was demonstrated as outsider to the natural world with no ability to manage harm in every stance, it would thus be valueless and undesirable to be given praise and actually shown contempt.

Beyond simply taking the stance that we know, as Atheists, gods do not exist; axiological atheism further strives from just evolution and shows that a creator and designer are not needed to explain life. Axiological atheism ethically critique, value judge analyze, and attack anything that we might be missing out on to remove belief that a god real or concept would be something of value seeing gods as oppressive moral monsters. Axiological atheism can also be seen as a form of antitheist and anti-religionist viewing the negative axiological difference that goddess/gods or religion’s existence makes in a world. Because “fact” symbolizes objectivity and “value” suggests subjectivity, the relationship of value to fact is of fundamental importance in developing any theory of the objectivity of axiological value and of value judgments understands “Axiological atheism” as axiological protest to existence of gods or supreme beings.

Axiological atheism is anti-theist challenging the slandered thinking that god gives or has morality or is a moral being, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing. Axiological atheism is anti-religionist challenging the slandered thinking that religion gives or has morality, exposing instead that such a belief is wrongly based on a premise (a hypothesis) that does not stand up to testing.

Axiological atheism is a branch of atheism that is also called constructive atheism: looks to science, humanity, and nature as the only viable source of ethics, morals, and values. These axiological atheists say that humans know what is morally right or wrong, inherently due to evolution which can also be seen in lesser forms of animal life with cognitive abilities demonstrating the rational rejection that its existence is only attributed to the myths of gods or supreme beings creation. Axiological atheism value view goes beyond Nietzsche’s comment that “god is dead” with the ethical opinion that god deserved to die.

Therefore, axiological atheism’s stance on a being in most faiths and the actions claimed of the imaginary being can be attributed to such atrocities, unfairness, injustices, and selfish/self-serving distortion of values. If there were such beings as gods, they are deserving of a life sentence in prison, the death penalty, or at least to be rebuked and shunned as an anti-humanist.

Axiological atheism holds judgmental axiological attitudes towards the existence of gods if there was even such myths, that is to say between an interest in grounds for positioning the existence of god or a god concept as harmful and desires to expose the negative orientations or evaluative reason for believing in god and religion and why they should have no value but do deserve distain. For some unbelievers, an axiological atheism stance would be a drastic position because it sees little necessity of disproving a god’s existence. However, sees no value in a god at all, even if one was true, and devalues the concept so fully that the preference would be that it be non-existent. If one was found to be real, and would wish to do away with the very flawed god concept all together to remove its harm to humanity.

Axiological atheism makes sense mainly on the assumption that believers have a distorted or inadequate concept of god and the violations to a just caring ethical humanity such a concept would be. Axiological atheist inquiry focuses on what a person values, finds desirable, or concern themselves with how a god is wrongly perceived or conceived as positive. Axiology to the philosophy of disbelief asks whether the existence of god (conceived in a particular way) would be a good or a bad thing, welcome or unwelcome. The axiological attitudes toward a god’s existence such as axiological atheism that thinks a god’s existence to be a very bad thing and axiological agnosticism is the indifference toward a god’s existence


What kind of atheist are you?

What kind of atheist are you?

by Mike Flood

At Milton Keynes Humanists’ monthly meetings, we are always pleased to welcome new people, and many come with questions about atheism — “What exactly is an atheist?” “How does atheism differ from agnosticism?” and “How do you define humanism?” So we thought it might be useful to prepare a note to explain these and a host of other terms that one can come across in the media or rationalist, freethinker, skeptic or secular literature.1 We do this with some trepidation because there is as yet no consensus about many of the terms in use and no agreed definitions, indeed many terms incorporate or encompass others.

Basically, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a supreme being or other immaterial things.2 The term appears to have been first used in the 18th Century. A humanist is someone who has a positive approach to life and a strong concern for human welfare, values and dignity (ie “an atheist who cares”).3 Agnosticism is different: it is a statement about knowledge rather than belief — the view that the truth of metaphysical claims regarding theology, an afterlife, or the existence of god is unknown or inherently unknowable. When asked “Do you believe in god?” an agnostic or ‘ignostic’ (see below) would say “I don’t understand the question. How do you define god?”

But there are many different kinds of atheists, and this can be confusing: we find frequent reference in the media to ‘militant atheists’, ‘fundamentalist atheists’ and ‘anti-theists’ — terms sometimes lumped together as ‘new atheists’.4 These labels are invariably scornful and uncomplimentary and are regularly attached to people like Richard Dawkins who actively campaign against religion or religious influence in public life.5 But this is only the tip of the lexicological iceberg: in this paper we’ve explored a number of other (less pejorative) terms.

We start with ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ atheism, terms coined in the late 1970s by George Smith. Smith defined ‘implicit atheism’ as “the absence of theistic beliefwithout a conscious rejection of it”, and ‘explicit atheism’ as “the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it” — it should be said that many non-believers would not recognize ‘implicit atheism’ as atheism at all, preferring to use terms such as ‘skeptic’ or ‘agnostic’.

Then we have the idea of a ‘passionate atheist’ — “someone who considers God to be their personal enemy”, as distinct from ‘ordinary atheists’ “who do not believe in God” (the distinction was floated by Freeman Dyson in 2006); and Christopher Silver and Thomas Coleman have proposed a different classification after carrying out a survey of non-believers:

  • ‘intellectualatheists/agnostics’ — people who “seek information and intellectual stimulation about atheism” who “like debating and arguing, particularly on popular Internet sites” and are “well-versed in books and articles about religion and atheism, and prone to citing those works frequently”;
  • ‘activists’ — not content with just disbelieving in God, this kind of atheist / agnostic wants to “tell others why they reject religion and why society would be better off if we all did likewise”; they also “tend to be vocal about political causes like gay rights, feminism, the environment and the care of animals”;
  • ‘seeker-agnostics’ — “people who are unsure about the existence of a God but keep an open mind and recognize the limits of human knowledge and experience”;
  • ‘non-theists’ — “people who do not involve themselves with either religion or anti-religion”; and
  • ‘ritual atheists’ — people who don’t believe in God, do not associate with religion, and do not believe in an afterlife, but still “find useful the teachings of some religious traditions.”

Silver and Coleman’s full list also contains ‘anti-theists’, which we have already encountered — people who “regularly speak out against religion and religious beliefs” who “view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental.” The late Christopher Hitchens described himself as ‘anti-theist’ rather than atheist.

Yet another classification was proposed by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in his essay ‘Reflections’:6

  • ‘ontological’ atheism — “a firm denial that there is any creator or manager of the universe” (ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being);
  • ‘ethical atheism’ — “a firm conviction that, even if there is a creator/manager of the world, he does not run things in accordance with the human moral agenda, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked”;7
  • ‘existential atheism’ — “a nervy assertion that even if there is a God, he has no authority to be the boss of my life”;
  • ‘agnostic atheism’ — “a cautious denial which claims that God’s existence can be neither proven nor disproven, but which ends up with behaviour no different from that of the ontological atheist”;
  • ‘ignostic atheism’ — “another cautious denial, which claims that the word ‘God’ is so confusing that it is meaningless and which translates into the same behaviour as the ontological atheist”;
  • ‘pragmatic atheism’ — “which regards God as irrelevant to ethical and successful living, and which views all discussions about God as a waste of time.” (Pragmatic atheism is also known as ‘practical atheism’ of ‘apatheism’).

And we conclude with ‘positive atheism’, which to some will sound like an oxymoron. Positive atheism — also called ‘strong atheism’ or ‘hard atheism’ — asserts that no deities exist. It contrasts with ‘negative atheism’ (‘weak atheism’ / ‘soft atheism’) which covers all other types of atheism wherein persons “do not believe in the existence of a creator but do not explicitly assert there to be none”.

Some may consider ‘brights’ in the United States as ‘positive atheists’, although technically they represent a rather broader church — the Brights Movement was founded in 2003 to promote “civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements”.8 But the term has not been widely adopted, not least because many think it suggests that people who profess a ‘naturalistic worldview’ are more intelligent (ie ‘brighter’) than non-naturalists, and this does little to promote tolerance and religious multiculturalism…

Positive atheism appeals to many Humanists because it helps dispel the cold, negative or false image of atheism that is often promulgated by senior clerics or fundamentalist Christians / Muslims. Perhaps the greatest proponent was Goparaju Rao, affectionately known as ‘Gora’. “Atheism is positive”, said Gora, “because the moment faith in god is banished, man’s gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious.”

Gora propounded the positive atheist position at the inauguration of the First World Atheist Conference which he co-founded in December 1972.9 “The essence of atheism,” he said, “is the freedom of the individual (and) freedom releases the immense potentialities of human imagination, initiative and effort that lay suppressed under theistic faith. The mood of supplication and complaint, inherent in prayers to god and petitions to government, has no place in the atheistic way of life … Atheism liberates humans from all kinds of bondage and restores the lost dignity to the individual to stand on his feet as a free and responsible person.”

Inevitably many (most?) non-believers are uncomfortable with the label ‘atheist’ and would like to do away with the term altogether — as Sam Harris puts it: “We don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people ‘non-astrologers’. All we need are words like ‘reason’ and ‘evidence’ and ‘common sense’ and ‘bullshit’ to put astrologers in their place”. “And so,” he concludes, “it could be with religion”



Many god’s

Many god’s

2 October 2013 at 20:33

Koios – also spelled Coeus. God of intelligence, heavenly prophecy and the axis.Kreios – also spelled Crius. God of leadership, domesticated animals and the constellations.Kronos – also spelled Cronus. God of time. King of the Titans. Roman name Saturn.Hyperion – God of light.Iapetos – God of mortal lifespan.Mnemosyne – Goddess of memory, the inventiveness of words and language.Oceanus – God of salt water.Phoebe – Goddess of the Oracle of Delphi and intellect.Rhea – Goddess of fertility, the female body, and later, nature. Mother of Zeus, Hera, Hestia, Hades, Poseidon and Demeter.Tethys – Goddess of Subterranean forces of fresh water and patron goddess of nursing mothers and the young.Theia – Goddess of sight, gold, silver, and gems.Themis – Goddess of divine law and order.Other Titans:Atlas – God of astronomy. Holds the sky from the earth as his punishment.Epimetheus – God of afterthought and excuses.Menoitios – God of violent anger, rash reactions and human morality.Prometheus – God of forethought and crafty counsel. Gave humanity the gift of Fire.Asteria – mother of HecatePerses – father of HecateAsterious – father of the AnemoiDione – goddess of the oracle DodonnaEos – Goddess of dawn and sister of Selene and HeliosHelios – God of the sun and brother of Selene and EosSelene – Goddess of the moon and sister of Helios and EosAriadne – goddess of passion and mazes (was a mortal princess engaged to Theseus but was abandoned and married to the god Dionysus and made Immortal.)Aeolus – god of winds (at birth was mortal made Immortal)Asclepius – god of medicine.Bia – Goddess of force.Cratos – God of strength and power.Deimos – Personification of terror; brother of Phobos.Eris – Goddess of discord.Eros – God of lovePsyche goddess of compassionGeras – God of old age.Ganymede cupbearer of the Olympians.Harmonia – Goddess of harmony.Hebe – Goddess of youth.Hecate – Goddess of magic, witchcraft, necromancy and crossroads.Hestia – Goddess of the hearth, fireside, family, and home, was one of the Olympians until she gave up her throne on for Dionysus, occupies fire on Olympus.Hypnos – God of sleep.Janus – God of doors, gates and new beginnings.Chione – Goddess of snow (her father is one of the gods of the winds).Leto – mother of Artemis and Apollo.Metis – mother of AthenaEnyo – goddesses of war and peacekeepingEileithyia – goddesses of childbirthMomus- God of blame.Moros – God of Doom.Nemesis – Goddess of consequences and revenge.Nike – Goddess of victory.Persephone – Goddess of spring and flowers and wife of Hades, hence queen of the Underworld.Phobos – God of Phobias and fear in general; brother of Deimos.Thanatos- God of peaceful death.The Erinyes – Otherwise known as The Furies. Goddesses of revenge.The Horae – Actually two groups of separate goddesses worshiped in different periods: the first three were goddesses of the seasons, the second generation were goddesses of law, justice and order.Tyche – Goddess of luck, destiny and fortune.Zelus – God of dedication.The Moirae: Klotho, Lachesis and Atropos – Controllers of life and destiny.The Muses – Representatives of the arts, sciences and songs.The Oneiroi: Morpheus, Phobetor and Phantasos – Personifications of dreams and sons of Hypnos.Pan – God of the Wild.Iris (goddess) – Goddess of the rainbow.Triton – god of ships, prince of AtlantisPaean – doctor of the gods.The Keres goddesses of violent Death.The Charites – goddesses of charm, beauty, human creativity, and fertility.Pallas – god of warfareMelinoe – goddess of ghosts.More here



African mythology[edit]Agwu, Igbo god of health and divination!Xu, sky god of the Bushmen of southern Africa who is invoked in illnessAztec mythology[edit]Ixtlilton, god of medicine.Patecatl, god of Pulque and healing.Celtic mythology[edit]Airmed, Irish goddess associated with healing and resurrectionAlaunus, Gaulish god of the sun, healing and prophecy associated with Greek god Helios-ApolloAtepomarus, Gaulish healing god associated with the Greek god ApolloBorvo, Celto-Lusitanian healing god associated with bubbling spring waterBrigid, Irish goddess associated with healingDian Cecht, Irish god of healingGlanis, Gaulish god associated with a healing spring at the town of GlanumGrannus, Gaulish god associated with spas, healing thermal and mineral springs, and the sunHooded Spirits, hooded deities associated with health and fertilityIanuaria, goddess associated with healingIovantucarus, Gaulish healer-god and protector of youth associated with Lenus MarsLenus, Gaulish healing god associated with the Greek god AresMaponos, god of youth, associated with the Greek god ApolloMullo, Gaulish deity associated with the Greek god Ares and said to heal afflictions of the eyeNodens, Gallo-Roman and Roman British god associated with healing, the sea, hunting and dogsSirona, Gallo-Roman and Celto-Germanic goddess associated with healingChinese mythology[edit]Elder Zhang Guo, one of the Eight Immortals, whose wine was considered to have healing propertiesImmortal Woman He, one of the Eight Immortals, whose lotus flower improves one’s health, mental and physicalIron-Crutch Li, one of the Eight Immortals, who alleviates the suffering of the poor, sick and needy with special medicine from his gourdWong Tai Sin, god with the power of healingShennong, mythical emperor who spread knowledge of herbs and medicine.Egyptian mythology[edit]Heka, deification of magic, through which Egyptians believed they could gain protection, healing and supportSekhmet, goddess of medicineSerket, goddess of healing stings and bitesTa-Bitjet, a scorpion goddess whose blood is a panacea for all poisonsEtruscan mythology[edit]Fufluns, god of plant life, happiness and health and growth in all thingsMenrva, goddess of war, art, wisdom and healthGreek mythology[edit]Aceso, goddess of the healing of wounds and the curing of illnessAegle, goddess of radiant good healthArtemis, goddess of the hunt, wild animals, the wilderness, childbirth, fertility, plague and good healthApollo, god of music, poetry, prophecy, archery, healing, medicine and plagueAsclepius, god of medicine and healingChiron, a centaur known for his knowledge and skill in healingEileithyia, goddess of childbirthHygieia, goddess of health, cleanliness and sanitationIaso, goddess of cures, remedies and modes of healingPaeon, physician of the godsPanacea, goddess of healingTelesphorus, demi-god of convalescence, who “brought to fulfillment” recuperation from illness or injuryHindu mythology[edit]




Lord Dhanvantari, the Hindu god of medicine and Lord of Ayurvedic medicineAshvins, twin doctors of the gods and gods of Ayurvedic medicineDhanvantari, physician of the gods and god of Ayurvedic medicineDhatri, solar god of health and domestic tranquilityMariamman, goddess of disease and rainShitala Devi, goddess of smallpox and diseaseHittite mythology[edit]Kamrusepa, goddess of healing, medicine, and magicShaushka, goddess of fertility, war, and healingInuit mythology[edit]Eeyeekalduk, god of medicine and good healthPinga, goddess of the hunt, fertility and medicineJapanese mythology[edit]Ebisu, god of fishermen, good luck, and workingmen, and the guardian of the health of small childrenMaya mythology[edit]Ixchel, jaguar goddess of midwifery and medicineMesopotamian mythology[edit]Anahita, Indo-Iranian goddess of fertility, healing and wisdomNamtar, god of death and diseaseNinazu, god of the underworld and healingNingishzida, god of the underworld and patron of medicineNintinugga, goddess of healingNinurta, god of the South Wind and healingNative American mythology[edit]Kumugwe, Nuxalk underwater god with the power to see into the future, heal the sick and injured, and bestow powers on those whom he favorsNorse mythology[edit]Eir, goddess associated with medical skillPersian mythology[edit]Haoma, god of healthPhoenician mythology[edit]Eshmun, god of healingRoman mythology[edit]Angitia, snake goddess associated with healingBona Dea, goddess of fertility, healing, virginity, and womenCardea, goddess of health, thresholds and door hinges and handlesCarna, goddess who presided over the heart and other organsEndovelicus, god of public health and safetyFebris, goddess who embodied and protected people from fever and malariaVejovis, god of healingVerminus, god who protected cattle from disease



Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.


Prayer does not work, Action does.

I am a atheist, and one of the issues that confront me is when someone asks me to pray for them or someone they know who are going through a bad time in life is how to react, I really feel emotions like compassion,Love and understanding and want to express those emotions toward a fellow human who need help, but I can not pray as I don’t believe that will help, BUT if it will help another human who is in a emotionally vulnerable position I will hope(that they overcome the predicament they are in ),care,love and help because I care and have deep compassion towards people in need of help. I will however not falsely say that I will pray, That would make me a false person. I will shed tears and console and help in a real way. So when I see posts on Facebook that ask me to pray I will not respond but silently hope they get over the despair they are in. Just the way I am.