If atheism does help the world, then forcing it on people would just cause anti-atheism. So anti-theism just causes anti-antitheism and such.

But education increases does increase everything atheism might seem to, perhaps atheism is just a side-effect of good education. But I know its not, I understand the psychology.

So I don't know if I should just promote indirectly secular science or continue what I am doing as I feel like doing when I find something interesting or think of a good argument or something I think is worth sharing.

Now watching a video about how lame atheism plus is I question are my actions similar? If i think about it not really. Atheism plus is sjw+atheism. I think they are just trying to get on feminist's good side before they cause a matriarchy or the weird social issues for instance in Sweden. They are trying to avoid sjw conflicts, if you cannot beat them join them ideology perhaps.

But I realize, if a person is a theist and hears a contradictory fact of science they force it into their view so it doesn't appear to contradict it (can't beat them join them) and that'd cause a whole wave of propaganda and misinformation which is ultimately detrimental.

So i think the proper approach is 'It's not the daily increase but daily decrease. Hack away at the unessential.' -Bruce Lee
Also another quote I like is 'Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.' -Albert Einstein
Why wait til something stupid happens, we need to prevent issues, and that means preventing misinformation.
And I already on my blog have shown how education increases cause decreases in crime.

But to be even more technical, making criminals atheists wouldn't help. No, but making a pre-criminal's parent an atheist might. But idk, it also might not. To presume a 'might' is to give into assumption and confirmation bias, largely of what I want to prevent, its a massive part of religious thought, and probably encompasses more.

So in which case my enemy isn't religious thought, but assumption and ignorance spreading. Which is why sometimes I nitpick correct answers in the debate forum for having an improper 'formula' leading to that answer. Then people are confused why I am arguing with them if I agree with them. Prevention. If we do not see ignorance there, we will continue that habit in the future where they might actually be wrong, and it'd help boost the efficiency of their mental processes potentially.

Except technically, being aware of one's own cognition and flaws and such can waste a lot of time, its almost better to just keep it simple. But how can I do that?

Sharing facts, like libraries for inmates promote job gaining, which decreases consideration of criminal acts resulting from boredom due to preferring reading, and the job keeps them busy also.

Thats the problem with sedentary society, boredom and physical inactivity. Mental illness doesn't happen to nomadic societies, and thats because people are comfortable enough to walk daily and experience new sights regularly. Prolly why truck simulator games have a following, similar to why ff15 is trying to market itself partially as a roadtrip game or why those games factually relieve stress. The static environment is what causes stress probably. Its probably also why religious journeys can be travels to famous churches or such. Its a liberating experience, which is probably why flight also is, its a lot for the mind to take in.

Tangentially related is near-sightedness has been shown to develop more when one is indoors more and those with worse sight get more nightmares and don't live as long unless they wear their glasses, even though wearing glasses decreases their eyesight quality over time. Maybe has to do with relieving stress on the brain and reduction in uncertainty which a minimal scope environment would do, similar to being indoors. Indoors, genetically/evolutionarily, might be because it was too dangerous to not be in cover. Our minds do get more paranoid with less sunlight and activity for a reason, it was more successful to be paranoid in safety with cognitive deterioration than to not.

And to bring that back into the interconnectedness of the world, nomadicism existed without religion. It had tall tales and myths or such, but no worship no sacrifice no arbitrary rules and no humanized deities. All sedentary cultures started without writing, and developed it after as a group. This means pre-farming myths like garden of eden, were subject to things like chinese whispers are subject to, but for a longer duration of time. Nomadics probably loved stories, they lead people when practice couldn't happen, its probably why visualization helps more than practicing a skill a russian study has shown that 3/4 visualization 1/4 practice was optimal for x/4 fraction variations. Thats why their tall tales existed, to lend an idea of the overarching theme of their lifestyle, or perhaps to answer questions that'd take time and repeat each generation without having a story to tell.(actually I think on second thoughts its because instead of anxieties, it gives them something constructive to imagine, it changes what would be a problem into a solution) Like why there is a myth about a giant beaver sucking up all of the water, and a wolf attacking the beaver and then formed the mississippi. They wouldn't have to waste time traveling all the way down there, because they knew what happened, perhaps. Like if they ask why does this river exist also, they don't need to dwell on it as much compared to other tasks they could busy themselves with for the group's survival, probably pro-efficiency. However once farming is founded, there tend to end up being places of sacrifice and gathering, I think I shared this sorta explanation in a different post(the information I haven't given before post), so don't need to go too in-depth.

Now extending from the underlined segment, if people only have spare time, this is when they have a NEED to create tall tales, and with writing they could keep track of them exactly, and if you got into an argument you could say I have it in writing! Thats proof.

But then once their territory gets too large, different groups develop their own versions of events based on cultural value and interpretation and key-points etc. This causes competition in a way. Thats why the Jesus stories, three or four different bible books, they came years after each other and when Jesus supposedly existed. But over time, yes, chronologically, they each had progressively more miracles. In their competitions to find what stuck to their religion, perhaps, there came to be a finding that the more ridiculous it was the better it did. Probably because when people are confused on something they tend to dwell on it more, and claiming your god is unknowable confusing people would be the way to go more than making sense. It gets them to give up on thinking and lend their faculties to the supreme maker or w/e, and to be sheep led by those above them (implied hierarchy and leadership and lack of critical thinking masses being promoted). Or perhaps it was because the miracles being more ridiculous is similar to fiction and how each story arch needs to get more intense than the previous. Similar to mlp, perhaps its a nature of interest in fiction to up the ante repeatedly or people would presume theres no new information worth hearing, probably. Or perhaps both.

Thats it for now. Maybe I should reach a conclusion lol. But prematurely concluding before I have decisive information is possibly irresponsible. Reminds me of the argument in my last blog entry, and them saying I had no effort because I wasn't consistent. Thats just evidence of indecision more than anything, which is evidence of a lack of decisive information. Morality is a very subjective field after-all. In which case I should consider psychological ethics, thats where I will take some research. But no matter what new information with such a prejudiced belief system is going to potentially be offensive, but that doesn't mean perhaps I should be as blunt as possible, though thats part of the Einstein quote, simpler is better helps reduce potential problems than talking around the problem and giving people chances to make more fallacies out of my politeness and assert they are true, then think they were winning and I am in denial or something stupid like that, out of my politeness.

Which is actually why people have to be blunt with politics. Which relates back to my post here https://mlpforums.com/topic/157681-the-tactics-of-donald-j-trump/and that topic in general, where people do not respond memorably to data, because it doesn't paint a picture, which brings it back to story-driven thought and visualization. It'd be suicidal or irresponsible, or so it'd seem, to actually not be blunt about it sometimes. And I do give a wealth of information, so I know I am not being unreasonable, so logical processors can find use of my information too. People assume I conclude too swiftly with my information, but they haven't seen all of my posts so can't really say what I know, so they are assuming I am assuming which is also psychological projection, funny.

Thats all for now, for realzies.