Inductive Positions

Inductive reasoning: is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.[1] The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.-wiki

The classic example is the black swan example. Before black swans were discovered, it would be rational to conclude on partial information that all swans are white in the following way.

1. All of the swans we have examined so far are white.
2. Therefore, all swans are white.

This conclusion has the possibility of being false with further information and evidence. In this sense, it is falsifiable because of an inference made from the conclusion. If all swans are white, then we can make that conclusion a premise in the following syllogism, which makes it falsifiable in the following way.

1. If all swans are white, then we will not observe black swans.
2. Black swans are observed.
3. Not all swans are white. (Modus Tollens)

This shows that all inductive claims made in this way are falsifiable simply by showing a counterexample to it. This is pretty much the stance of uniformitarianism in which known observations take precedence over the unknown. This is how to distinguish between figurative and literal language in historical writings. When a writer says that it rained cats and dogs, we are reasonably assured that it is figurative language, but if we suddenly observed cats and dogs falling from the heavens, it would lend credibility to the writing's historical credibility. This principle could easily be summarized as positing the known over the unknown for historical events.

This makes positing supernatural claims unwelcome for historical purposes until they can be verified in the present by credible observation. In this sense, I am a naturalist, I don't think any supernatural claims have been established and have tentatively taken the position that all supernatural claims that have been investigated are false, therefore all supernatural claims are false. To falsify this conclusion, all one needs to do is demonstrate one observation of the supernatural. A similar explanation could be made for the atheist position. These positions are not held to a standard of absolute certainty, they are tentative, for they have the possibility to be falsified, but that does not discount their ability to account for the processes of reality.

Christopher Hitchens

Besides the charming accent, this is much more reason to listen to Hitchens. His points, usually hidden underneath barbed attacks on religion, using pejorative language to emphasis his point, can sometimes give an impression of going off-topic. However, this brings back to the main point, it is much better to project to the people in the pews than to sway the theologians in ivory towers that have an entirely different view altogether. This may appear to be a straw man, since he is not directly attacking his opponent's views, but I think the medium used is more conducive to making speaking points to the audience than actual discussion so I've learned to accept it as a debating tactic. If the difference between these two types of believers differ too greatly, he has one at least one occasion asked the rhetorical, abiding by Harris's request to call a spade a spade, "I thought I was debating a religious person?"

The scorecard objectively shows the damage of Hitchen's forte. His rhetoric pertaining to the ill effects of religiosity bar none better. One could not help leaving out his trademark phrase concerning the Catholic Church of "no child's behind left." A force to be reckoned with, but it is unfortunate that he is sometimes downplayed because his antics cloud some people's ability to see his underlying points. Here, Hitchen's makes his case of how religion poisons everything.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

What are the good arguments that atheism is true?
This phrase may be convincing to some, and is used by WLC in his debates, but my disdain for it can be seen in the WLC v. Hitchens debate in which Hitchens corrects WLC that the phrasing is misleading and commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Hitchens correctly says that atheism is the position that a certain set of claims isn't true, not a claim in of itself. After WLC commits the same mistake directly following Hitchen's correction, Hitchens spends more time correcting WLC adding "I wish you would get this bit right." Nonetheless, he didn't get it right, for he continued to use the misleading flawed charge against Hitchens multiple times thereafter. The only conclusion I can muster is that WLC was following the mantra that "if you say a lie long enough, it becomes truth." Alas, here is the correction.

The world fits the null hypothesis better than the alternative. The null hypothesis,H₀, is the method of assuming that a claim is false, and then you compare the null hypothesis (H₀=God does not exist) to H₁ (H₁:=God exists). If the evidence fits H₁ better than H₀, then H₀ is rejected and we have evidence for H₁. Otherwise, we conclude in favor of the null hypothesis.

This is why it is meaningless to ask for evidence that atheism is correct, for it is a rejection of a claim, and it is the lack of evidence for the alternate hypothesis that makes the conclusion of atheism being valid. So the question is, what would we expect to be different from a universe with no god than a universe with a god? This answer has been answered in different ways in the past, either that the Earth is the center of the universe, that there are no atheists, that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, that you will be able to move mountains, or societal health will be linked to the proportion of a certain religion. This essentially asks, "what are the real world consequences or manifestations of god." If there is no difference from a universe without god and one with, then he effectively does not exist.

So, returning to the original question, the correct answer is that thus forward, our observations support the null hypothesis rather than the alternative hypothesis that god exists. Additionally, one could say that by continuing to fail to support H₁, one is accumulating more evidence against its existence, which would support the conclusion that god does not exist.

Prove Atheism
And if they go for the more ridiculous charge of "prove atheism", I wouldn't mind getting a little facetious in my answer.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods.
I lack belief in a god or gods.
Therefore atheism exists.
Q.E.D.

Pascal's Wager

Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!
–Homer Simpson

This is exactly why Pascal's Wager fails. It sets up a false dichotomy between atheism and a specific deity with eternal hell for nonbelievers, such as Christianity. It goes something like this, if Christianity is true and you believe, then you earn everlasting life, if you don't believe, you earn eternal punishment. If Christianity is false, inferring that if there is no god, then nothing happens after death. Given the expected return of our options, we should believe even if we think it is extremely unlikely to be the case.

In this formation of the argument, the inference that Christianity being false leads to no gods is false due to the false dichotomy, it could easily be the case that Islam is true or an unidentified deity would reward the atheist (no doubt for valuing rationality) while punishing the believer. Considering more options of this type where non-belief is preferred by the deity rather than belief, Pascal's Wager can be easily turned in the atheist's favor. The number of deities this could be applied to is endless. For this reason, Pascal's Wager has been portrayed as trying to pick a winning horse out of an infinite number of contestants, trying to do so without an epistemology that gives reasonable results would be a futile pursuit.

Static Morality

Finally, can anyone explain why “opinions on who shall live and who shall die, who shall go free and who shall be enslaved or imprisoned, who shall be comforted and who shall be made to suffer” should be at the bottom of the list of “that which shall not to be questioned?”

Because questioning reveals flaws. If you want to improve our moral customs, then they must be open to questioning. If not, they become frozen in the time in which they were instituted and that will remain the status quo until such questions are entertained.

Sharia Law
Witches were burned long ago
Til the flame of freedom began to glow
And we learned to say the word 'no'
No, know that your laws are unjust
Not worthy of respect, only disgust-by Nessrriinn

Euthyphro Dilemma

Is something good because God commands it or not because God demands it? If it is good because God commands it, then it is by definition arbitrary and subjective. If it is good for reasons other than God's command, then there are independent objective reasons for why its good, morality is independent of God, and God is unnecessary for finding moral values. The first picture paints a fairly stark version of morality where what is considered good could include anything from rape to murder and what is considered wrong could include anything from charity to the color green. The second picture means that the theistic question of "without God, where do you get your morals?" becomes a meaningless question as morals are independent to God's existence. Each side of the dilemma is unfavorable towards the theist, which makes Socrate's argument undefeated since its conception.

Some apologists have tried to bridge the dilemma by offering obfuscated explanations of it being a false dichotomy. However, I just see this as them trying to have their cake and eat it too. Also, any argument that relates morality and God usually fails because of this point. For example, William Lane Craig's moral argument for the existence of God:

1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.

If objective moral values exist, then it does not infer that God exists since objective moral values are independent to God's existence (the second prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). The only way for the first premise to be true in the form of "If there are moral values, then God exists" is to say that God is to claim that God is the reason for why something is considered moral, which is by definition subjective (the first prong of the Euthyphro dilemma). For this reason, the first premise is false.

Good arguments for the existence of god...

Don't exist. As far as from what I can tell, a good argument falls into one of three categories:

1. The fallacy is hidden in the argument. For example, Matt Slick's transcendental argument for God's existence sets up a false dilemma and then tries to violate it later on in the argument. It also makes an equivocation fallacy between logic and logical absolutes. Sometimes the definitions of terms will be different to accommodate a contradiction.

2. The argument is just an analogy. For example, Paley's Watchmaker analogy is known for demonstrating the teleological argument. Plantinga's irrational tribe that see's trees as demon's is an analogy he gives for his evolutionary argument against naturalism. Analogies are meant to convey the idea in a more familiar way, it shouldn't be the foundation of your argument; if it is, the analogy is probably dis-analogous.

3. The argument is valid and possibly sound, but it doesn't point to god's existence. For example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument concludes with the astounding claim that "the universe has a cause." Such a cause may be God or some quantum phenomenon. As noted by Matt Dillahunty, even if we grant that the cause of the universe by a really powerful supernatural being called God, that does not mean that it currently exists. It could have drained all of its energy in the creation of the universe or desist in some other event. By other definitions of God, defining the being to being eternal, this argument also fails to demonstrate that being.

Unfair to criticize the Church?

But then there's no point criticisng the Chruch's stance, or people who listened to the Church, because had they listened to the Church's stance in its entirety, people would not have multiple partners, and the issue of aids would be far less severe.

Criticisng the Church is unjust because the only reason why aids it's such a big problem was that people were too greedy to stop at one partner, which the Church advised against.

I don't see how its unfair to criticize the Church's stance on this issue. The method of abstinence only education is demonstrably ineffective and counterproductive. Its unrealistic to presume that the answer to the problem is an answer that does not take into account desires inherent to being human. If you know that telling someone information that will lead to more suffering than another known method, it is worthy of criticism. If you think that the Church's position is the solution, then you are part of the problem.

Methods of Discovery

The fruits of the scientific enterprise vastly outnumber any other method of discovery. Contrast this with divine revelation, and you get the most barren method of exploring the natural world. Not only is every claim unfounded, it is merely chance that a certain conclusion would be correct. Divine revelation would be synonymous in this context. Every supernatural claim when tested carefully has failed. These track records can give us an idea of how well the method is at accurately finding information about the environment we live in.

We can use our observations of the past claims to estimate how accurate both of these methods are. We can infer how probable a claim is correct from this method. There is a high degree of certainty that conclusions from the scientific method will be accurate and a low degree of certainty that conclusions from the divine revelation method will be accurate. For this reason, the scientific method is a better instrument for finding "truth" than divine revelation.

Driving Pet Peeves

Stop Signs: All stop signs should function as yield signs. Yield signs signify to stop only if there is danger of other drivers. Stop signs signify to stop even if there is no danger of other drivers. The only function I see from the stop and yield signs is to signify how fast one can approach the intersection. For example, stop signs are usually planted where in order to assess the presence of other drivers, one must approach the intersection at a very low speed, from zero to five miles per hour. While yield signs are usually placed on on-ramps where one can approach at much higher rates of speed. Even though one must approach the intersections with stop signs at a low speed, it is not always necessary to come to a complete stop, hence the California roll. The only reason to come to a full stop is to fulfill the letter of the law.

Turn Signals:I think in most cases, the use of turn signals is unnecessary. I drove extensively in Boston and you get used to looking at drivers intentions via their positioning on the road, their acceleration, and their velocity. Because you can decipher a driver's intentions without turn signals, their use is often redundant. If you expect someone to use their turn signals if they are going to turn, then you leave yourself open to risky situations. Therefore, turn signals are inherently unreliable if some drivers use them while others don't. Even when someone uses their signal, when there are other indications of them not intending to turn, such as not beginning to slow down, people still don't rely on the information conveyed by the turn signal and wait until you do show the above mentioned indications of turning, effectively making the turn signal useless in the majority of cases.

The only cases I find it to be useful is on the highway. When you are sandwiched within a pack of cars and you want to switch lanes, most likely to get over for an exist, turn signals convey the communication effectively while the other indicators would probably be associated with aggressive driving. Turn signals also show their value in similar situations where traffic results in high speed, close proximity driving.

Are there always fanatics?

But if religion didn't exist, I'm nearly certain people would become "fanatics" about something else.

So, lets let them continue killing each other over religion? I don't see the point. It's like saying why bother curing malaria, people will just die by a different disease. If you are able to eliminate one cause, it is worthwhile to do so. If people fight over economic, political, etc. problems, I think it is worthwhile to eliminate those problems as well. To say that people will always become fanatical about something else once these problems have been eliminated is incorrect evident by the societal health of the Scandinavian countries.

What Sets Buddhism Apart From The Others

Believe nothing,
No matter where you read it,
Or who has said it,
Not even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense.

Buddha

It's compatible with science, new knowledge, and skepticism. What more could you ask for in a religion? Out of all the ones trying to convert others via divine command, threats of condemnation, or some method of deception, such as presenting historical legend as fact; here's Buddha saying don't agree with me because of some divine authority, only agree with me if you genuinely agree with my reasoning. It allows for advancements to be made instead of being a roadblock using absolutist principles hindering scientific discovery attempting to drag us back to the bronze age. Not only this, but it suggests that everyone's ideas are on a level playing field, which is unique to religions and makes Buddha more of a philosopher than prophet. I think it would be interesting to see how Buddha would have responded to the scientific revolution, if he would have dropped some of his obsolete ideas and hopped on board, or if he would have held his ground.

When someone says that atheists are intolerant against religions, this is the first thing I bring up: Buddhism and Jainism. If all the Muslims and Christians were Buddhists and Jains, I would not have one iota of objection against religion. It's just that Islam and Christianity is so demonstrably harmful that it is hard not to speak up.

Flying Under the Radar

We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.-Sam Harris

I resonate with this message when I argue. The label atheism sometimes has unwanted semantic baggage that gets in the way of criticizing willful ignorance and delusional thinking. One should only be revealed to be an atheist either by their criticisms of theism or they have been directly asked. Within one's criticisms, their atheism should play no role, within one's arguments, their atheism should play no role, other than it enables them to argue against theism.

Although, I think that identifying the demographic is valuable, especially for outreach programs for people who live in a heavily religious community. For political considerations, to call a little attention to the politicians who pander to the religious. To show that we are here and worth paying attention to. There may be some good reasons for restoring the atheism label, but its use is unnecessary when it comes to exposing the flaws in other people's thinking and that should be a worthwhile goal for everyone.

Mutually Assured Destruction

In the last minutes of the movie Wargames, a supercomputer takes control of the launch capabilities of Norad in a simulation of a nuclear strike against the US. To make the computer learn of the potential outcomes, they created another simulation of the game: tic-tac-toe. The supercomputer would learn that the game when played correctly from both sides, would never result in a winner. This is a similar outcome to when the supercomputer runs the scenarios of global nuclear war; no single country benefits from participating. So, it concludes "The only winning move is not to play."

M.A.D.:It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome, in this case, nuclear annihilation.

However, what would happen if a nation or group of people benefited from global nuclear war?

What a person believes happens after death determines his view of it-and, therefore, his ethics.-The End of Faith, Pg 157

I think the answer is obvious. When someone values the afterlife more than this life and they believe that their ticket to heaven is through a holy war, then this particular type of ideology is particularly dangerous to the rest of us. Add nuclear technology to the equation and the result could be radioactive. The only question that should come to mind next is, "How do we stop that from happening?"

I View Debates Differently

I feel it is academically dishonest when someone uses an argument, that they have used before, and it has been thoroughly demonstrated that it is invalid or unsound, either in a previous debate or in writings elsewhere directed to them, without rebutting the objections. This goes double for opening remarks that commit logical fallacies without revising it for future debates. This is my version of Godwin's Law, anyone who does this, automatically loses.

I don't like the idea of judging someone's performance by how much is left unanswered. Imagine if the debate was on paper, person A has 5 arguments in support of their position, person B rests on the burden of proof, and each person gave the other person a copy of their opening for the rebuttal phase. During the rebuttal phase, person B points out every flaw in 3 out of 5 of the arguments, leaving the top half of the paper filled with red ink and only due to time constraints is unable to correct the remaining fallacious points. It seems like a silly way of determining who won by asking "who had more points in their favor at the end?" Even if none of them are valid, and have been discounted a countless number of times before. If people are penalized more for what their mistakes, then they would be more careful in their own fact checking, but this seems to be less important than delivering a point with confidence. Perhaps this is part of the skills of debating, but I find it to a useless rubric if you actually want to enlarge the body of knowledge.

It always takes twice as much time to rebut an assertion as to make one, so the fact that both parties have equal time all but entails the affirmative position will always win on any technical measure.

If you're argument is invalid, and that can be pointed out by anyone of reasonable intellect, I don't care if the opponent didn't address every single point, I'm not going to think your position is justified. Maybe you won by debating standards, but I would just as well say that you won by default, you won by your opponent's ineptitude, a result similar when an insane person debates a mute and the audience has no thinking capacity.

This is why I dislike debates and prefer discussion formats more. It enables the opponent to stop the person as soon as they make a factually incorrect claim, instead of letting them continue on for fifteen minutes leaving that point either lost in the wind or having the opponent spend time summarizing the point so people know which point his is addressing. It also enables more engagement between the two speakers and makes then be prepared for more than just their talking points, in other words, it puts a leash on the speakers so that they can't ramble off into the sunset. Debates are valuable for showmanship, not intellectual discussion.

Taken from here:

I’ve listened to Craig many times. Since I know a lot more about Cosmology than he does, he just sounds idiotic on that point. Luke, are you a debate judge? Do you score it?

I’m interested in what other people have to say about this. If an atheist fails to respond to an incorrect statement, is that a point to the theist? It seems like other people do this, but I don’t. After all, it’s not like we need to view the debate with the comprehension of a five year old.

Our Niche

This was sparked from this video: Evolution is NOT a ladder

Some species survive because they're big, some species survive because they are small, some species survive because they're agile, some species survive because they're hidden, some species survive because they reproduce really fast, some species survive because their ecosystem has no predators, some species survive because they are poisonous, some species survive because they protect each other in groups, some species survive because they are intelligent.

That's us at the end, we are the intelligent social species, that is our niche. It is no more special than being the biggest, the most agile, or the strongest. In our case, we would lose almost every fight against another species mano y mano who have evolved to fill these niches. But that is to be expected, it is our niche to be social and intelligent.

We work in groups and use tools at our disposal in order to fend off predators and thrive in our environment. We happily enjoy this niche since it allows us to investigate intellectual pursuits such as the arts and sciences. But, with these advantages, we have weaknesses in other areas. This comes with the territory of our niche; however, it does not mean that we are evolutionary better to be intelligent than it is to occupy any other niche. We thrive by using our intellect, so go out and use it.

Nunley & The Fine Tuning Argument, Part 3

Is the fishnet analogy flawed?

For Bram, rvkevin and Reid: As much as I admire your discussion of dis-analogies between fishnet cases and the fine-tuning/firing squad stuff, I’m afraid time forbids that I engage at length. However, I think several of us are in agreement that the fishnet case is a flawed analogy.-Troy Nunley

I don’t agree that the fishnet case is flawed. Its just that when you transfer the conditions to the firing squad case, you don’t keep them the same. Concerning P(O&OSE|H1)=P(O&OSE|H2) for the firing squad example. If the the chance of them intending to kill him and missing is zero so even with the strongest OSE, there will never be a population to select from, P(O&OSE|H1)=/=P(O&OSE|H2) and is not analogous to the fishnet. If you change the conditions and say there is a chance of missing, then I don’t find anything strange with such an outcome.

It would be like if I were to investigate executions and I advertised to anyone who participated in an execution as the target to come be interviewed and they would be my sample. Not to anyone’s surprise, everyone I interviewed survived their execution. Now, I agree, if you change the hypothesis to say, “There are at least 50 people who survived their execution when their executioner intended otherwise”, then it would convey some information, but that’s not what we’re concerned about about. We want to know the probability of interviewing someone who survived an execution when they were intended to be killed with this OSE. If such an event is possible, then everyone I interview would confirm that they survived. So, how is it odd that P(O&OSE|H1)=P(O&OSE|H2) when P(O&OSE|H2)=100%?

Its just that in the firing squad case, you eliminate the element of chance. It would be like me asking the probability of someone placing a soccer ball on the goal line and then missing the net accidentally. They would have to intentionally aim away from the target to miss. So it follows logically that they intended to miss. 1. If they intend to hit the target, they will hit the target. 2. They did not hit the target 3. Therefore they did not intend to hit the target. It would seem that for the firing squad example to have any weight in this aspect, you would need to demonstrate that the universe is unable to form by “chance”.

One last thing to say about the fishnet and firing squad comparison. Let’s say the fishermen puts a net out in the ocean at random that is only able to catch one fish (bigger than Nemo). A fish of sufficient size swims in and thinks, “The odds that I would be the one to swim into this net are so remarkably low, I think I have evidence that the fisherman intended to catch ME.” How is this any different than the firing squad example? In essence, it shows that in the case of the firing squad (if possible), we are placing special meaning on one particular outcome, when in reality, its compatible with chance and implies no intention.

Nunley & The Fine Tuning Argument, Part 2

Considering the Firing Squad analogy:

This person who was intended to be a victim of a shooting, takes of his blindfold and says, wow, I think that I have some evidence that these people intended to miss me as opposed to the hypothesis that they tried to hit me, but I got ridiculously lucky-Nunley

I find it funny how you say that they intended to kill him, but since they missed, its evidence that they didn’t intend to kill him. But what if they intended to kill him and fail, what would you conclude? To say that they didn’t intend to kill him would contradict yourself. To say its the result of chance would be unlikely for such a low probability event, but reasonable if there is an adequate level of confirmation bias. What other options are there? Why not a miracle, or a supernatural force comparable to Neo tampering with the flight path of the bullets?
Why is the supernatural not preferred over chance, especially considering if guardian angels were watching over him, wouldn’t it be much more likely that they would intervene and he would have a significantly higher chance of survival than left by chance? After all, isn’t that what the fine-tuning argument is trying to establish in relation to the formation of the universe? As the angels demonstrate, just because a supernatural entity is likely to produce a certain outcome if they did exist, that outcome isn’t even considered, nor preferred over the slim chance of a natural occurrence. If the supernatural is not preferable over chance in the firing squad case, I find it similarly unconvincing when considering the formation of the universe.

Analogies for Emotional Appeal

What is the point of the firing squad example? Why invoke a firing squad rather than a lottery? Does it add any legitimate logical arguments, or does it (as I suspect) just amplify the emotional appeal?

I vote for emotional appeal. It would require a suspension of the natural laws to prevent the bullets from reaching their target, unless they aimed elsewhere intentionally (They were described as marksmen so there accuracy should not be questioned). You might as well ask, whats the chance that they put the muzzle to his skin and missed? The chance is zero. So unless he argues that the chance of of the universe occurring naturally is zero, I don’t see it fit as an analogy.

However, with a lottery example, we know that there are winners, and they occur naturally, despite each outcome being so improbable. Despite the low odds, if you continually play, you will win the lottery. The problem is that we have not observed the times when the universe formed and failed to form intelligent life (collapsed into its original state, etc.) so we see the one successful attempt and people say “its so improbable, it must have been intentional.” It would be like if I could erase my memory every time I lost the lottery, and then when I win (even if its after billions of tries), I exclaim, “why the odds are so astronomically small that I would win on my first time, I think I have evidence that the gods are in my favor.” Would I be convincing?

Nunley & The Fine Tuning Argument

My reaction to Troy Nunley's lecture on the fine tuning argument: Part 1, Part 2

Isn’t the fine tuning argument just a big example of confirmation bias? We confirm the one hit of a universe that is suitable for life and don’t observe any of the misses. Same with the firing squad, the people before and after probably shared a quite different fate, but we are asked to consider a sample of one. To ask “what if this really rare thing happened?” without counting the misses is trivial. This is the essence of what the anthropic principle is, which seemed to go unaddressed and he just waived the multi-verse off without consideration.

He basically just asserts that the probability of god existing and creating the universe is higher than it naturally occurring. Does anyone know how he calculated the probability of god? As we see later, saying that an outcome is more likely if something exists does not make that option necessarily more plausible than other options.

I don’t think the firing squad is a particularly good example. It basically assumes that there is no chance that they can all miss unless intentionally. The situation is assuming no mechanical failure (all bullets fire), and no human error (marksmen) at close range with multiple shooters (the original had 50). Now, if I asked people whats the chance that Tiger Woods would miss a one inch putt 50 times in a row, I bet people would say that would never happen unless intended, just like the firing squad. Which leads to 1. If they intend to hit them, then they will hit them. 2. They did not hit them 3. Therefore, they did not intend to hit them. To compare this to the formation of the universe would essentially say that there it is not possible naturally, which he has not shown.

Bad at Establishing Cause and Effect

How do religions get started?

People are very superstitious in nature and are very bad at establishing cause and effect. In this episode, Derren Brown recreates Skinner's pigeon experiment using people to show that people form a false conclusion between cause and effect. If you look at basic tribal religions you will find superstitious practices. We can speculate using this experiment as proof of concept that one time they did a dance, they had a great catch, other times, they associate a bad harvest to the actions of an individual. They continue to perform the actions that give good results and ban the actions that they associate with poor results. After all, religion is mostly organized superstition.

This does not even include the formation of religion from the human intent for it to be used as a control mechanism or for personal benefit. If you look at most caste systems, the religious figures tended to be at the top, which would be an incentive to claim divine powers. Even today, people exploit superstitious beliefs for monetary profit.

This is a very good presentation by Michael Shermer that goes more in depth on how people falsely link cause and effect: The pattern behind self-deception.

Logical vs. Physical Possibilities

There are physical limitations on objects which don't constitute logical contradictions. For example, there is no logical contradiction in claiming that when someone pours a glass of water into a bucket, it will form the sculpture of a knight on a horse. However, the physical properties of water preclude this from happening, it is a physical impossibility. Another example would be a teapot orbiting the Andromeda galaxy at a hundred times the speed of light. The same could be said for many other such claims.

How does this relate to deities? Well, when one asks me what kind of evidence I would accept as evidence that their deity exists, I am kind of dumbfounded. Depending on the claim, for one, just demonstrating that it is possible such that an immaterial being can effect material objects, call it the "Casper problem." The Casper problem is that a ghost goes through objects and does not and is unable to interact with them. That something that is timeless can bring matter into existence, in effect bringing time into existence. That a changeless being can effect changes in the universe, for example, to start off the universe. Such statements by themselves or in conjunction with others may not form logical contradictions and are logically possible, but that does not mean that they are physically possible, which leads into a quote by "philosopher" William Lane Craig.

Only someone who has a proof of atheism, can deny the possibility of miracles because as long as God's existence is even possible, then it is possible that there are miracles...In the absence of a proof of god's non-existence, then he needs to be open to the possibility of miracles.-WLC

My first reaction would be somewhat to the effect of, there are certain ways that nature works, if you don't like it, go somewhere else; to another universe, where the natural laws are more simpler and more pleasing philosophically. Although, maybe we can put together some form of quick syllogism to acquiesce his request.

1. God is an immaterial being(def.)
2. Immaterial beings cannot effect material objects (Casper problem)
3. God cannot effect material objects. (1&2)
4. A miracle is God effecting one or more material objects (def.)
5. Therefore, there are no miracles. (1-4)

There, we have a sound syllogism saying that there are no miracles. We didn't even need to prove that he does not exist, all we need to show is that God can not interact with the physical universe. Showing just how flawed WLC's impromptu argument is.

Empathy, it works.

How do you know slavery is wrong?

- It is impossible to empathize being a slave: I was never a slave, how about you?

A rational person would not enter a contract where they are the property of another person. Therefore, slavery is wrong. And yes, I can empathize being a slave. The more you learn about a subject, the more you learn about what actually happened, the more you understand their circumstances and what they had to go through. Can you empathize being tortured? If you never have gone through it, how would you know its not a pleasurable experience? No offense, but your argument is dumb. I don't need to experience being dangled over a barrel of fire while being prodded with a hook to know that it causes suffering. The same could be said for slavery.

If Only You Were There

The sane individuals who experience these things find themselves between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they're rational, normal people most like anyone else: they know that normally, doors don't close themselves, stacks of games don't fly across the room landing stacked, and there are no non-existent neighbors walking around upstairs or on the roof. Normally, an anomalous noise might not even catch our attention. Key word: normally.

I can't help but wonder how those who only believe in what science permits would react to something like this. In all reality, I believe these are exactly the type of experiences skeptics need to have.-CL

This was a response by an anecdote of someone saying their door opened by "itself" and thinks this incidence is adequate justification for thinking his house is haunted, noting that he hasn't seen anything materialize and he feels like he is being watched. I think the message of this is theists saying, "if you had the same experiences we had, you would also believe." No, I have had similar experiences and have looked for natural answers.

Today, my door closed by "itself," a door not attached to the outside, but to a hallway leading into another room. Had the wind came through my window, the door would be blown more open and not closed. Did I freak out? No, I reset the door, and watched it close again, while also listening to the rustling sound of the leaves on trees. Sometimes the wind would not be strong enough and the door would oscillate back and forth, but nonetheless, the door would close by itself another four or five times until I concluded that wind was responsible. Aware that correlation does not mean causation, I go look for the cause. Low and behold, a window nearly thirty feet from my door was open and is the prime suspect.

Had it not been for the distant trees in the background, the audio cues of the wind would have been lost, and been unattached from my anecdote. Had I not checked the surroundings for other openings in the closed system (my house), other sources of wind would have been omitted from my anecdote and I may have falsely told someone that wind was not the cause. Maybe some other detail would be essential for coming up with the cause would have been lost had I not reset the conditions. Maybe when I quickly glanced over at the door (after all, I'm not watching my door on a regular basis), I imagined something which was not there, and when I repeated it, I would realize it was just a shadow. This is why anecdotes fail, they tend not to give enough information to establish a cause and some information that is taken as fact may actually not be as concrete as some would put it.

Let's take another example. The door opens from the closed position after being closed for a period of time, and the cause of wind has been weeded out, what detail would be necessary to figure out the cause? No wind, no physical agents such as pets or other people, the locking mechanism wasn't fully engaged and slowly lost the friction with the carpet fibers. Do we need to resort to demons just yet? No. The detail omitted is the excessive use of an air conditioner. In the heat, the door swells, doesn't get fully closed, I turn on the air conditioner after I enter the room, the room's temperature drops twenty degrees, the door returns to normal, losing grip with the frame and opens.

One might object that this as an ad hoc rationalization, custom tailored to a natural worldview. Well, it can be demonstrated that wind can effect physical objects, and that temperature has a direct relationship with density (when holding pressure constant) with increases in temperature resulting in less dense objects and decreases in temperature result in more dense objects (with exceptions such as water where the inverse is true). These principles have been demonstrated to be true, the demon hypothesis has not, which means that the scientific principles should be used as the best explanation.

What if I couldn't naturally explain something, is it then justified to explain a mystery with a bigger mystery? No. Doing so would be an appeal to ignorance.

Eating Chocolate is Unnatural

Someone tried to argue that homosexual acts are unnatural, essentially immoral, because as he explained, procreation is the purpose of sex. Well, it turns out we do a lot of things that are unnatural that most people would accept as moral, so I responded in the spirit of this quote, "A fool tries to persuade me with his words, the wise man persuades me with my own":

Let me get this straight. Eating chocolate is unnatural. The natural purpose of eating is to survive, that is evident. Eating chocolate is an action only taken to attain pleasure. People who eat chocolate aren't doing it for the purpose it is clearly designed for: survival. Eating chocolate corrupts the biological intentions for the act of mastication. Therefore, eating chocolate is antithetical to the natural purpose of eating and therefore is unnatural and immoral.

Not to mention that any seasoning that isn't a means to the end of survival would also be considered unnatural since the only reason we use them is to make the act of eating more pleasurable. Seasonings would also be a good example because of the added benefit that humans are the only species that I know of that flavors their food so it could genuinely said to be "unnatural." Similar examples could be made between drinking to stay hydrated, and drinking soda or beer would being antithetical to that end. This seems like a silly method of determining morality.

I think I'm missing something because I suspect you don't equate eating a seasoned steak to be as immoral as homosexual acts. So what am I missing?

Someone mentioned that chocolate might have some health benefits so I switched it to the "Doughnut Defense":

The only point that is important is that at a certain quantity, it becomes unhealthy, and I didn't think anyone disagreed with that point. If they do, then they can substitute chocolate with something from this site. Now that I think about it, I might as well substitute chocolate with doughnuts so I can call my analogy the "doughnut defense."

In case you think there is something healthy about this sugary toroid, "'When it comes to health, the only thing good about them is the hole,' said Carla Wolper, nutritionist at the New York Obesity Research Center."

Additional Counter-examples:
Outline
1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

Example 1
1) Adrenaline was biologically designed for the means of "fight or flight," a means for the end of our survival.
2) Riding a roller coaster corrupts this natural act by fulfilling an end (pleasure) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Releasing adrenaline from riding a roller coaster does not imitate the natural act of releasing adrenaline, such as seeing the sight of a predator or being inflicted by an injury.
4) Therefore, riding a roller coaster is unnatural and immoral.

Example 2
1) Adrenaline was biologically designed for the means of "fight or flight," a means for the end of our survival.
2) Acupuncture corrupts this natural act by fulfilling an end (pain relief) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Releasing adrenaline from acupuncture does not imitate the natural act of releasing adrenaline, such as seeing the sight of a predator or being inflicted by an injury.
4) Therefore, acupuncture is unnatural and immoral.

Example 3
1) Toxins are biologically designed for the means of killing other animals, a means for the end of survival of the host species.
2) Using toxins for antidotes corrupts the natural act by fulfilling an end (helping the predator species) other than it was biologically designed for.
3) Consuming an antidote does not imitate the natural transmission of toxins.
4) Therefore, using toxins for medical purposes is unnatural and immoral.

I hope this demonstrates that something being unnatural does not mean it is immoral. Not to mention the number of natural immoral actions one could justify using this system. The next point would be, it is nonsensical to say that biological structures are designed. They may serve some purpose currently or in the past, but to say that they were designed would be to propose an illusory cause for these structures.

Trying to Redefine Atheism Fails, Part 4

I stated my problem: your definition of atheist, though technically correct, is near-meaningless, because it is too broad and includes…those who have never heard a single (a)theist argument.

So if these people are not atheists or theists, what would you call them? Non-theist? If so, once they hear one argument and find a flaw, do they stop being a non-theist and become an atheist? Why?

Its seems silly using “hearing an argument” as criteria for describing someone’s position. “Have you ever heard an argument for theism?” Yea, some guy said trees are proof of god and that’s not a valid argument. “OK, you’re not a non-theist, you’re an atheist then.” The flaw of one argument does not give merit to the other position, so hearing one flawed argument is is irrelevant between differentiating between the positions of a non-theist and an atheist.

If someone goes through every theistic argument and finds none of them are sound and valid, do they become an atheist? According to the definition as someone who believes there are no deities, they don’t, which I find to be a little silly because I would suspect that most, if not all, people who has done that, would call themselves an atheist.

You’re basically trying to argue against its usage, which, to be honest, seems to be completely useless. Once you convince everyone that atheism “properly” means the belief that there are no deities, congratulations, you just renamed the atheist position to the agnostic position, or the non-theist position, or whatever label you come up with. What we’re called makes no difference, but to change the definition of a label to misattribute characteristics on a group is dishonest.

*using non-theist to describe someone who has never heard an argument for theism/atheism (and does not believe in a deity) and atheist to describe someone who has heard the arguments and does not believe in a deity.

If you really really want to differentiate between the people who don’t believe because they have never heard of any argument for or against and the people who have researched in depth on the subject, just add qualifiers onto the word atheist. For example, people who are ignorant of theism could be considered ignorant atheists and the people who are knowledgeable about theism but don’t believe could be considered intellectual atheists. See, you don’t need to butcher the word atheist in order to differentiate different schools of thought inside atheism. If you want to categorize people’s positions in a more specified group,there are labels such as humanist, Pearlist, etc., you don’t need to change the definition of atheist to do so.

Trying to Redefine Atheism Fails, Part 3

Regarding whether a person who has a split brain where each hemisphere signifies they are an atheist and a theist and whether we should call the person a theist or an atheist.

Let me reiterate that all I am arguing for is the ambiguity of reality in contrast to the starkness of binary terminology, and therefor the inadequacy of binary terminology.

Binary terminology is not the problem here, it is the ambiguity of the definitions. The definition of theism is the problem here. If the definition of theism is, a person who believes in a deity, then applying it to a part of a person would be a category error. The answer would be not applicable and not applicable.

If the definition of theism is an entity that has a belief in a deity, then you can apply that to a subset of the mind, and half the brain would be theistic and the other half would be atheistic. By this definition, the whole person would be considered a theist since since it has a belief that a deity exists. Sticking with this definition of theism, if we choose to define atheism as an entity that has belief that there is no god, then atheism and theism are no longer mutually exclusive, which is a bizarre conclusion. However, if we define atheism as not theism, then atheism and theism remain to be mutually exclusive.

Semantics & Logic

No, I don’t think so. What’s the opposite of positive? Not-positive, ie. negative and neutral? What’s the opposite of conservative (in the American political sense)? Non-conservative, ie. liberal and moderate(&radical&anarchist&fascist…)?

What is the opposite of moral? Immoral or amoral?

A good action is moral. A bad action is immoral. An indifferent action is amoral.

So much for showing that the prefix “a” means the opposite of. And even if it did, we can modify the meaning of words.

In any binary system, such as (A U B), the negation of one (-A) leads to the confirmation of the other (B). Either a Democrat or a Republican will win the election (D U R), if the Democrat loses (-D), then the opposite is confirmed, the Republican won ( R ). In this sense, Democrat and Republican are opposites. However, to make atheism and theism a binary system, you need to make atheism be defined as not theism. In this sense, atheism is the opposite of theism, and in this sense, it is impossible for somebody to be neither an atheist nor a theist.

Trying to Redefine Atheism Fails, Part 2

I can understand Mark’s hesitation to accept that “as opposed to atheism” means “not theism” rather than “the opposite of theism.”

Well, if you have a group of people and some people believe that a god or gods exist, lets call them theists, whats the opposite of that? Wouldn’t the opposite of theism be the label that describes the rest of the group? If so, then that would be not believing in a god, the standard definition that most, if not all, atheists accept. If not, then I question what you mean when you say the opposite of theism.

To say otherwise is to introduce a different claim; it no longer becomes an issue of the claim A and not A, it becomes an issue of claims A and B. Theism is A: someone who believes that a god or gods exist. Atheism is not A: someone who does not believe that a god or gods exist. Atheism is not equivalent to B: someone who believes that a god or gods do not exist. Anyone who tries to say that the opposite of A is B is mistaken to say the least.

Trying to Redefine Atheism Fails

In response to trying to redefine atheism to be "a person who believes there is no god or gods."

I would like to note that this definition of atheism, as the belief that a specific god does not exist, makes the word atheism useless as a label. It ignores the varying definitions of gods. Under this definition, I could be an atheist in regards to one claim, and at the same time not an atheist in regards to a different claim. So under this definition, I could be both an atheist and not an atheist, so it patently fails as a label. Defining it as a belief that the general notions of god doesn't exist, such a label would apply to nearly no one, so it fails to accurately describe its usage.

I don’t think it would “jive” with everyday use. I doubt any atheist would say, “well, I’ve investigated the claims of and found evidence against Odin, Woden, Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Eywa, +10,000 different god claims…so I believe they all don’t exist, and also every other concept of god that someone comes up with also doesn’t exist, so I believe no gods exist”…No, it is mostly, I’m not going to believe claims until good evidence is brought forward, evidence has not been provided for these claims, so I don’t believe them. Therefore, trying to redefine atheism as a belief that there are no gods is patently absurd since it does not accurately describe the group who actively use the label.

Tough luck, we’ve chosen the label atheist, with whatever word you feel like we are better described as, replace it with atheist.

The Distinction Between Theism & Atheism

Atheism is a response to the question “Do you believe in a god or gods?” To say yes, is to be a theist. To say I don’t know, would be a confession of being confused of ones beliefs, which is why agnosticism is not a relevant position to this question. To say no, is to be an atheist.

Differentiating Probability Claims with Labels, Not.

Are you saying you recommend “agnostic atheist” for someone who thinks God’s existence is likely but does not believe that God exists? How would you differentiate that person from someone like Hermes, who believes no gods exist but does not claim knowledge?

I personally wouldn’t distinguish the difference with labels. You would need to ask them personally about what they believe. We could make a distinction between people who claim “I believe the existence of X is less than 1%,” “I believe the existence of X is between 1 and 5%,” and “I believe the existence of X is between 5 and 10%,” and so on until we cover every probability. But alas, we can make more distinctions between someone that states “I believe the existence of X is between 5% and 7%” and the person who states “I believe the existence of X is between 8% and 10%.” We could assign a separate label to each position, but the effort would be fruitless. I’ll leave it to the individual to state whether they believe X exists is likely or unlikely.

God is likely?

Why something being possible or likely does not warrant belief:

What if I said, “I believe the next coin flip will be heads.” Is that reasonable? It is entirely possible, yet it is not reasonable to claim belief that a certain outcome is true or going to happen. The chance that the coin will be heads is relatively probable, yet it is unreasonable to believe it will be heads. Similarly, it is unreasonable to believe that there is life on Europa without such evidence even if it is possible or even likely. In such a case, the person would say “I believe that life on Europa is possible” or “I believe life on Europa is likely,” not “I believe there is life on Europa”. Unjustified belief is unreasonable, and on that basis alone, is worthy of ridicule.

Atheists being closed-minded and intolerant?

Being closed-minded, I would doubt that it would describe the majority of atheists or even a small percentage. Just because we are quick to dismiss an idea, does not mean we are closed minded. I am quick to dismiss the flat-Earth hypothesis, alchemy, homeopathy, etc. but that does not mean that I would not investigate new evidence if it were to be discovered. As it is said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

I am not even sure why being intolerant (especially if you include harsh criticism to be intolerance, which I disagree that it does) of some actions would be considered bad. When a group is causing harm, I would hope people wouldn't tolerate such actions. In that regard I agree, atheists, well at least I, are intolerant of discrimination, willful ignorance, credulity, impediments to law enforcement, people forcing their belief's onto others, as well as other actions. But that doesn't apply to all religious philosophies, I am perfectly tolerant of people who follow Jainism, Ubuntu, the Dharma, humanism, etc. So I wouldn't say that atheists are intolerant to religion, just some religious philosophies (and only with when stretching the definition of intolerance to include harsh criticism, which I don't think is sufficient), since there are many religious philosophies that are either benign or positive.

I think it would be more accurate to say that most atheists are more disrespectful to some religious beliefs rather than being intolerant of them. That would be one point that I wouldn't hesitate to concede, but I think its a misuse of the word to label most atheists as intolerant and closed-minded.

Say "I'm right and you're wrong," with reason and evidence.

Religion shouldn't be held accountable for man's desire to say "I'm right and you're wrong".

OK, but I will hold it accountable when it's holy book tells believers to "strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them (referring to unbelievers)." and then the followers do so because their "god's word" told them to. Its one thing to be in the wrong, its an entirely different thing to advocate intolerance and violence.

And what's so wrong with people saying "I'm right and you're wrong," that is, as long as they provide sufficient reason and evidence to show that the they are correct and the other person is wrong. The problem with religion is that the latter is not included in the discussion, it literally falls flat on its face in trying to support itself with reason. Religion should be held accountable when its adherents hold to a dogmatic view and cause harm by it.

And I don't fully share your sentiment that man has a desire to say "I'm right and you're wrong." I don't mind if someone tells me that I'm wrong, as long as they also give sufficient evidence and reason for their claim. That way, instead of being wrong this one time, I can be right in the future, and it also increases my knowledge, which makes my decisions based on more accurate information. This is another fault of religion, it claims "I'm right and I can never be wrong;" with such resistance to change, it is unlikely for its adherents to be swayed by physical evidence and reasoned logic.

Do people take Fox News seriously?

I don't watch the news very much, but from the articles I read online and what I hear from others, both Fox News and MSNBC are biased, especially their prime-time commentators. O'Reilly, Olbermann, Beck, Maddow, etc. are entertainers, not newscasters. And Colbert is a comedian, yet people tend to take the opinions of comedians seriously.

Really? I find the online articles to be a lot more neutral than anything they talk about on the air. O'Reilly, Olbermann, Beck, etc. may be entertainers, but I'm not sure the laymen considers them that, and instead take them seriously; I'm not sure how someone would come to the conclusion that they were entertainers (They're on a news channel, wearing suits, solely talking about political issues) without dissecting what they're saying, which is more credit than I give to most Americans. By the way, Colbert is really biased against bears, but I really doubt if anyone really takes those comments seriously.

How do religions form?

People are very superstitious in nature and are very bad at establishing cause and effect. In this episode here, Derren Brown recreates Skinner's pigeon experiment using people to show that people form a false conclusion between cause and effect. If you look at basic tribal religions you will find superstitious practices. One time they did a dance, they had a great catch, other times, they associate a bad harvest to the actions of an individual. They continue to perform the actions that give good results and ban the actions that they associate with poor results. After all, religion is mostly organized superstition.

How Memes Die Out

I remember hearing that the reason why heliocentric theory was eventually accepted over the geocentric theory was because the people who thought the heliocentric theory was true eventually died and the new generation learned the geocentric theory. I think this is similar to religion, the biggest change in the demographics occurs between generations (which is probably why religion is heavily focused on child indoctrination). Although their are some examples where people lose the dogma in their middle ages.

Independant accounts verify miracles?

I gave an example above of how it was well credited. There are extra-biblical sources that speak of Jesus as a miracle-maker, albeit they depict him in very negative terms. There are Jewish accounts that describe Jesus as some sort miracle maker, but one that is to be despised. I can link to extra-biblical sources crediting the miraculous nature of Jesus' walk on earth.

I look forward to seeing those sources. But I'm not sure if ancient hearsay would be convincing. I don't doubt some accounts would say that there were miracles, but I doubt that they were actually supernatural events. After all, miracle is fairly synonymous with magic, some event that is unable to be explained by the group of people considering the claim. There are numerous things that cultures at that time wouldn't have been able to explain, that doesn't mean that their accounts of what actually happened are accurate. For example, when the Portuguese emigrated to South America, they convinced the natives that they were deities by threatening to burn their water supply and actually exemplified their threat by turning a small amount of water on fire. Now this might appear to be a miracle making the Portuguese worthy of worship, but with the right facts (they used grain alcohol instead of water), the explanation is so mundane as to not warrant a second glance and this was in the 16th century.

"The lowest form of evidence in this world is eye-witness testimony" -Neil Degrasse Tyson
There's a reason why we don't accept people's claims about being abducted by UFOs, sighting Big Foot, or the Loch Ness monster, and these claims are made in modern times! People have been making extraordinary claims since there have been people, that does not mean there is a reason to accept their claims as true without evidence. Unless you believe accounts of UFOs, Big Foot, etc. what makes the accounts of Jesus's miracles any more credible?

Does morality have natural origins?

I think the argument for the development of morality is similar to the development of the eye. We see it implemented in nature at gradual levels of development and conclude that it has natural origins. In particular, the use of in/out group thought, which aids in individual survival. More specifically, an organism will form sub-divisions within its environment to cooperate, which will benefit the group (In human development, progressions such as Family, Tribe, National, and International communities create synergy). For example, Piranhas don't attack each other in a feeding frenzy, but they would be happy to attack something that isn't in their group. There are numerous examples of different species of animals demonstrating morality in some form or another. I'm not entirely sure what the religious explanation for morality is, but if it doesn't incorporate animal morality, then I don't find it very credible.

What do you not believe?

Why you don't ask someone what people don't believe in? The number of entities are limitless, picking one or a few wouldn't do justice, so the appropriate answer is vague in nature. My answer to the question:

What kind of God don't you believe in? That is, what is "God"?

The definition of God is determined by the person bringing the claim. Sherpas might call Sagarmāthā a God, the Mayans might call the planets Gods, it would be foolish to deny the existence of Mt. Everest and the planets, so generally God includes attributes of benevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, but they are not limited to those attributes (For example, many claims are made about his wishes, miraculous events, etc.). Basically, it is determined by who is presenting the claim, but generally, anything supernatural is rejected.

Morality is the Glue that Holds Society Together

If you desire X, and Y achieves X, then you should do Y. For utilitarians, X would be relieving suffering/increasing happiness in reference to the relevant parties, and Y would be things that achieve those goals. The debate of "is and ought" is why is X decreasing suffering and not something else, such as increasing suffering or following holy texts? Why do we not ought to decrease happiness and increase suffering? This is what Harris was referring to when he said that this is what it means to have a field of expertise and not considering certain views. In a sense, we are defining increasing happiness/decreasing pain as the goal of morality because that is our goal as individuals (which is where the philosophers cry foul "as you cannot get an ought from an is" and why science doesn't really resolve the meta-ethical issue in any meaningful sense).

So, why ought we decrease suffering/increase happiness? Well, I just found it to be more satisfactory than anything else and inline with what actions people tend to call moral/immoral; however, X is probably better defined as being a particular group, where the criteria we would use for determining how preferable a group is, is the level of well-being (based on the individual's preferences) of the group (and I would contend that most people, since people are relatively similar, our notion of well-being would be relatively similar | For example, if you want to live in a society with low X, X being murder, theft, etc., you should not commit X and condemn those who do), so it would lead to similar conclusions, and where differences occur, trade offs occur.

If you disagree with X, by all means, make it decreasing happiness and increasing suffering. However, once this individual is detrimental to the group, either the group will disband (a negative outcome for those in the group), or the more likely case, the group has reason to condemn the individual and if need be, ultimately isolate the individual from the group to maintain the cohesiveness of the group. In society, this would be incarceration (on less severe offenses, loss of relationships, economic opportunities, etc.); in the animal kingdom, this would just be letting the individual left alone to fend for itself, making itself a prime target of predation and reprimands for smaller offenses. These social tools allow the group to influence the individual's desires to conform with the group's, to make it in the individual's self-interest to conform with X enabling the success of the group. In this sense, morality is the glue that holds society (the group) together.

It is generally accepted that certain standards of behavior are needed to ensure a stable productive group (society), here is a common purpose; while it may not the only purpose, it is a purpose nonetheless. Immoral actions are a tax on the group. Moral actions benefit the group. Having a stable productive society raises the well-being of everyone involved, and as such, is a worthy desire for each of its members.

Using Set Theory to Define Atheism

2 X = [P ~[B[G E]]]. The definition argued for by most of the outspoken contemporary self proclaimed atheists I have encountered.
3 X = ~[P[B[G E]]]. The definition Hermes and [me] are arguing for.

Actually no, that would be a category error. But, as far as a label goes, 2&3 would convey the same information when a person declares themselves to be an atheist since they are already part of set P. If they are in set P, but they are ~[P[B[G E]]] then it follows that they are an atheist. So by saying I am ~[P[B[G E]]], I'm also saying that I am [P ~[B[G E]]]. Within the category of entities that are able to be theists, I think that ~T or ~[B[G E]] is the best descriptor for the label atheist.

However, I wouldn't necessarily narrow it to set P. I wouldn't be surprised if other species are able to form beliefs, maybe some concerning the nature of god, but I wouldn't exclude them on the basis of being not being human. But that's besides the point.

Don't Argue with the Logical Absolutes

The only thing I disagreed with was the bit of set theory that everything is necessarily either “A” or “not A.”

This isn’t something something you should disagree with. It is the foundation of logic: the law of non-contradiction.

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”-Avicenna

As trivial as demonstrating 2+2=4, this would be even more trivial. Instead of putting 2 rocks in a pile and then adding 2 more rocks and saying “see,there’s four rocks there;” all one need to do is look at a rock and say “see, its a rock, and if it wasn’t a rock, then it wouldn’t be a rock” If someone still disagrees, Avicenna’s approach looks tempting.

Can people have a phobia of atheism?

I think so.

phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

Crazy Christian Lady

Is it rational to fear certain practices such as magic, astrology, tarot cards? What is the harm? None. There is no harm from seeing a magic trick, looking at a horoscope, or shuffling tarot cards. Relying on that information would be a separate issue entirely, but the actual actions themselves are harmless. I think it is safe to say that the person in the video has a phobia of atheism, astrology, etc.; basically anything anti-Christian.

I wonder how far this sentiments far into the branches of Christianity. Perhaps not to the extreme of this lady, but I feel it fuels some arguments for religion. One that comes to mind is the reductio ad absurdum of 'if we take religion out of the public sphere, we will result into the like of atheistic regimes: Nazism, Stalin-ism, and Maoism.' Of course, one need not look farther than the Scandinavians and the secular US to show that this conclusion is false, but then why does it get mentioned so often? You have nothing to fear, your fear is irrational.

The same could be said for Islam. Their fear is showcased on display here.