Returning From Religulous

I saw Religulous with my atheist group Friday night. We descended on the theater in a swarm of thirty.

Religulous surpassed my expectations. It was quite delightful. I'm a big fan of Bill Maher -- especially his stand-up -- and the film was somewhat of a stand-up documentary. Even the scenes from the trailer were funnier in the film as there was more to them.

Have you ever been to a film where there's so much noise in the audience that you can't hear what's being said in the film? That was my experience with Religulous -- but in a good way. People, myself included, were laughing so hard and so frequently that I missed out on a lot of dialog.

I'll definitely see it again (again, big fan of Bill Maher). I'm looking forward to the DVD to see all the bonus footage. I read that Rael was supposed to be in the film, but I didn't see him, so hopefully that will be there.

H2thyphrO's Dilemma

MrFreeThinker (don't let the name mislead you) has taken up my challenge for Christians to convince me by arguing for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. I will be replying to him later once I have a little more time.

He has left a comment here, though, and also posted a response to my fellow Raytractor Dave attempting to resolve logical contradictions. Regarding the rock-so-heavy argument, MrFreeThinker attempts to resolve it by saying that it is trivial -- like saying can God make a female horse that is a stallion. It is trivially false because by definition it doesn't exist. He fails to understand a paradox, though.

He tried to resolve Euthyphro dilemma in the same way:

I am holding a glass of water in my hands.Is this H20 because it is water, or is it water because it’s H2O?

(Meant to demonstrate the meaninglessness of Euthrypo’s dilemma.)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Euthyphro dilemma. That dilemma is often phrased as:

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God.

To phrase it differently, does God command some action because he recognizes it is wrong or is it wrong because God commands it? If you understand the dilemma it is anything but meaningless.

The importance of it is especially relevant in the "how can you be moral without God"? Some sort of appeal to absolute morality -- without God morals would be relative, or something along those lines. The Euthyphro dilemma is fatal for this argument.

If we take the former case, that God says something is wrong because he recognizes it is wrong, the argument against atheism/for God fails because there is a morality independent of God and we atheists can help ourselves to this absolute standard.

If we take the latter case, that things are wrong because God says so, renders morality arbitrary and relative as well -- because it's moral just because God says so. He might as well just have flipped a coin to decide is something is moral or not to command it (and it seems this is what he did in the Old Testament).

To be consistent with the argument, morals must be independent of both ourselves and God.

If the latter option is chosen, though, that it's dependent on God, then we have a whole other avenue to stroll down of divining just what those morals are.

Definitively Atheist

This is a post I have intended for a while and is aimed at both atheists and theists, though more for the latter. The aim is not to define atheism, per se, but rather discuss the arguments used by theists in debates about the term.

To preface it, the definition atheists advance is "not believing that a god exists" (what I'll label the "weak definition" for purposes of this entry) whereas the definition theists advance is "believing that no gods exist" (what I'll label the "strong definition").

"Common Usage"
The argument I hear often is something along the lines of:

Atheists improperly argue etymology, historical use of the term, or dictionary definitions. While interesting, it bears no weight on the current meaning of the word; words change over time. The correct meaning of the word is that in which it is commonly used.

This is the common usage argument. Overlooking the fact that dictionaries give usages of the words rather than definitions (thus rendering that point moot), one should take the time to ask: How is "atheist" commonly used? Imagine the following conversation (in which I have actually been the atheist):

Bob: What are your views about God?
Bert: I don't believe God exists.
Bob: Oh. You're an atheist?

And a variant:

Bob: Do you believe that a god exists?
Bert: No.
Bob: Oh. So you're an atheist?

Both of these support the weak definition. I imagine most people who pose Bob's first question and receive Bert's response would then call Bert an atheist. Such a response is inconsistent with the strong definition.

Not Believing vs Believing Not
Another common argument goes that there is no difference between the two definitions. The weak definition centers on "not believing" whereas the strong definition centers on "believing not." Is there a difference? There's a difference because the former definition is about having no belief whereas the latter is necessarily having a belief.

To illustrate the difference, I'll pick a topic which most people probably won't be familiar with: semantics of programming languages. Consider:

A sentential form which is of a leftmost derivation is necessary for recursive-descent parsing.

Do you believe the above is true or false? If you have don't have any idea about what a sentential form is or what recursive-descent parsing is, it is the ostensible truth that you have no belief. You neither believe that the above claim is true nor do you believe that the above claim is false. You neither believe for or against. You don't believe.

Now, consider the following conversation:

Me: Do you believe that recursive-descent parsing requires a sentential form which is of a leftmost derivation?
You: No.
Me: Oh, so you believe that claim is false!

Is it accurate for me to conclude that, since you do not believe that the claim is true, you necessarily believe that it is false? Of course not.

X: I believe the claim is true.
Y: I neither believe the claim is true nor do I believe the claim is false.
Z: I believe the claim is false.

If I ask you if you believe the claim is true, I'm asking "do you fall in the category X." Since you're in category Y, you would have to answer "no." That places you in the category "~X." It's a fallacy for me to conclude you are in category Z, though, because ~X = Y + Z. Since you fall in the category Y, it is valid for you to say "I do not fall in category X" -- "I don't believe the claim is true."

There's a clear distinction between not believing a claim is true and believing a claim is false. So, similarly:

X: I believe a god exists. (theist)
Y: I neither believe god exists, nor do I believe that no gods exist. (non-theist)
Z: I believe that no gods exist. (anti-theist)

Now, if you ask me if I fall in category X, I would have to say no. I lie squarely in ~X.

Do you believe a god exists? Yes = X; No = ~X.

Since I don't hold that belief -- since I don't believe a god exists -- I am in ~X. It's a fallacy for you to conclude that I must therefore be in category Z.

To tie this in to the weak and strong definitions, the weak definition is ~X while the strong definition is Z. Note that ~X = Y + Z. So, these two terms are not mutually exclusive; Z is a subset of ~X. All Z are also ~X but not all ~X are Z.

Conclusion: Redefining Atheism
So, to the point, theists often charge that we are trying to redefine atheism. That's clearly not the case. But even if it is... so what? "Gay" hasn't always meant homosexual -- at some point they began to redefine it by choosing it as a label for themselves. Even if it weren't the case that atheism is defined using the weak definition both in dictionaries and in common usage, what does it matter that we are trying to redefine it? It's simply the label we've chosen to identify ourselves as.

But this goes to a larger point. To often it's the case that the charge is leveled that we're trying to redefine atheism in a grand misdirection. What is the logic in the mind of the person who alleges this?

Dan: Do you believe a god exists?
Sal: No.
Dan: Ah, so you're an atheist!
Sal: Yeah, I don't believe any gods exist.
Dan: Well, believing there are no gods requires just as much faith as my position.
Sal: I never said I believe there are no gods. I'm an atheist; I just lack the belief.
Dan: Oh, you're just trying to redefine the word to mean lacking a belief. It really means that you believe there are no gods.
Sal: But that's not what I believe. I don't have a belief about the existence of gods.
Dan: Quit trying to redefine the word.

Ad nauseam. They seem to somehow shift the debate from the belief in a god to a debate about the label on beliefs in a god. What is the logic in Dan's mind? That Sal secretly believes there are no gods, calls himself an atheist, insists on atheism simply being a lack of belief to misdirect, but also claiming at the same time he doesn't believe gods exist?

Let's not forget that these are the labels we put on ideas; the labels themselves have no meaning. They are defined by the ideas which they label. Quit directing arguments against the label and start directing them towards the idea.

Proof That Obama Will Be Elected

Tonight, I figured out that I could prove that Obama will be elected this November.

I was walking home with my friend tonight and we were laughing at some horrible mistakes we had made today on a project -- mistakes that seriously set us back. I said I would be going home to watch Palin in the debate (still waiting on it to be posted online to view) -- he didn't see the connection. "We made such a huge mistake today -- come on, we're half way through our project and we discover we've been using the wrong circuit. Now, that was stupid. When I get to home and watch Palin, though, it'll make me feel better -- that's profound stupid that's actually successful."

I'm not laughing any more, though. Palin was funny. She's genuinely frightening now, though. It's frightening that she actually has a chance. Listening to her speak is like listening to one of Ray's little minions parrot everything he says. They'll pull out the building argument, you point out that it can be used to prove evolution, and they are completely stumped -- but then keep asserting the same argument. It's transparently obvious they know absolutely nothing and are just copying doltish arguments to mask their own ignorance.

That's all Palin does: she parrots everything from McCain, such as listening to her on Roe v Wade. Katie asked her to name just one other Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade with which she disagrees. Her answer? Roe v Wade. Seriously, because she could not name just other Supreme Court case she disagreed with. In fact, I suspect she doesn't even know any other Supreme Court case at all. This blatant ignorance is unacceptable. You don't have to follow the Supreme Court, all you have to do is have a seventh grade level education.

Hmm, let's brainstorm a bit here for Supreme Court cases. Hey, I know! How about that one that upheld segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal"? Surely she disagrees with Plessy v Ferguson!

Oh, wait, I know! How about that old case about slaves being chattel? That no black, regardless of whether or not a slave, could never be a citizen... and neither could their children. Surely she could fumble through all the propaganda floating on the top layer of her brain to work her way to "Dred Scott."

Or wait! I know! WHAT ABOUT KITZMILLER V DOVER?! That one is for creationism, which is dear to her heart. I know, it's not a Supreme Court case, but come on, this is the woman who thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was good enough for the Founders. Surely we can forgive her this.


But how does all of this get to proof of Obama being elected? It goes towards a line of argument I have observed from Christians. It's an argument from emotion -- God has to exist. If God doesn't exist, then I have no purpose... no reason to live. God has to exist or else there is no ultimate justice. The child rapist who gets away with it in this lifetime will never receive justice. Therefore, God must exist. They cannot believe that there can be no purpose or such injustice.


Similarly, Palin cannot be elected. She's too shockingly ignorant and stupid. Americans have to be smarter than electing someone without even a seventh grade level of knowledge of the Supreme Court. I just cannot believe that Americans would cast their vote for someone so ridiculous that, if it weren't for the tragic reality of it, we would otherwise think her a parody of politicians. In fact, SNL can't even parody her because she's a self-parody.

But further, Americans can't be so stupid that they don't see through the reason she was nominated. I know there will be plenty of ignorant, uninformed, partisan hacks like Ray Comfort who thinks Palin "rocks," but I cannot accept a reality where she is elected.

Therefore, Obama will be elected.

Prostrate for Christian Tolerance!

Ray likes to call atheists chicken for, supposedly, criticizing Christianity instead of Islam. In his latest post he warns of the repercussion to atheists due to Religulous mocking Islam. It's more of the, "oh, you atheists are lucky you live in America and are criticizing Christians. You're lucky this isn't the Middle East or that you aren't criticizing Islam because they'd kill you. You should be thankful we're so tolerant that we don't attack you."

Comfort warns that Hollywood has gotten away with mockery of Christianity, but many Muslims aren’t so tolerant.

It echoes one of his earlier sentiments (which he pulls out all the time):

I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Muslims what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. [...] You wouldn’t dare, because you are chicken-livered. You know that they are not like Christians. Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head.

Are you kidding me? Why is this always something I hear Christians pull out when Christianity is mocked or criticized? At least 70% of Ray's blog is dedicated to mocking atheists; do we come back at him and say "hey, you should be thankful that we atheists don't send you death threats like the Catholics or lop your head off like the Muslims for mocking us"?

When I refuse to let you borrow my car, should you admonish me by saying "you should be thankful I asked you instead of just stealing it." What is this nonsense of "you're lucky I don't throw a temper tantrum and hit you," anyway?

What are you? Three?