Φυσισμός κι αθεϊσμός / physicalism and atheism

Ο φυσισμός (η φυσιοκρατία) είναι ισχυρότερος του αθεϊσμού ως ονομασία κοινωνικής ομάδας, χωρίς να τον ακυρώνει / Physicalism (metaphysical naturalism) is stronger than atheism as an Identity cohort name

Physicalism (metaphysical naturalism) is stronger than atheism as an Identity cohort name

Anti-otherness should be mentioned, but in most cases affirmative selfhood is stronger (physicalism or atheism as the main cohort label?).

According to academic philosophy an atheist isn't necessarily a physicalist (some atheists might reject the notion of God, but also not care about cosmomechanics/ontophysics/how the world actually works). Practically though most atheists are physicalists. Also the point isn't to prove that atheism is identical/tautological to physicalism (rigorously examined it isn't a word with a tautological meaning). The point is to have a strong cohort able to fight for its rights, but it will have to ideologically evolve. Speaking academically to the masses can backfire if the idea isn't presented in a quality-popularisation/well-popularised manner. It generates opposite currents by people who don't necessarily disagree, but they might not like big analyses (most people like popular terms like 'atheism'; physicalism isn't as popular and many physicalists focus on doing philosophy/philosophising which isn't tautological to biasedly promoting a popular term.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Pollsters prefer the term atheist (not physicalist) and erroneously use religion as the hypernym of all 'metaphysical worldviews', including religions (false tautology/false identity) and nontheisms [nontheisms: atheism, agnosticism, metaphysical indifference, other] (the erroneous presentation of all 'metaphysical worldviews' as religious or religions; in this text I don't examine this case but it's important)

(I wrote it in a simple form to communicate it with average atheists who aren't necessarily good analytical thinkers/philosophers. I didn't examine the fallacy of "physical theism" (it's popular amongst some pseudophysicalist theists): why personhood isn't fundamental enough to be part of the foundations of ontoaxiomatics [everything that exists is part of substantiality, and due to causopermeability it is part of ontoaxiomatics; but not all things are of equal ontofoundational importance; not all things that exist are cosmogonic, and those which are, have variant importance/cosmogonic significance]) (Non scholar atheists prefer the noun form "god" for God [belittling criterion]. Philosophers like snipers make sure to aim the exact target [well-aiming criterion].)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

the main simplistic/communicative text:

I am physicalist (it means atheist, and I also claim that the universe exists and functions via logical processes/procedures; cosmogony didn't start from the non-person non-god; that's why I promote the term physicalism as our main cohort name; because we are supposed to define our own theory, and not merely reject fallacies. Main ideas should have affirmative definitions. Negations are useful and necessary, but not as main ideological titles; this usually means that the philosopher didn't evolve well enough his own personal view about "how things are" and not merely "how things are not" (we elaborate on negations inside our texts, but the main ideological title when possible has to be affirmative and related to our main view). If our main view is the mere rejection of the fallacies of others, we are bad philosophers.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Antiwar or peace? Antiwar is used in ideological wars because it's more reactive, but the goal is peace.

If you don't like something you can be anti-so-and-so for reaction, but you have to mainly be the affirmative-your-own-so-and-so, because if you main definition requires as an ingredient the thing you reject, it means it's more fundamental than your own identity. Does the thing you reject use your ideas in its definition (negatively/disaffirmatively, that doesn't matter)? Are your ideas the foundation/basis (or part of it) of the ideas of those you don't ideologically like? Atheism less personhood-biased than theism, but we can do better. The point isn't to reject atheism (we'll keep it) but to better define the self.