Reasonable Doubt

*America doesn't make witnesses do this in court anymore, but we used to. This meme is now horribly out of date. That said, I believe "so help me God" is still used and Presidents almost always swear in using the bible.

What Aren't There In Foxholes

I’ve been thinking (again) about what truth the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” might hold. I know what it’s like to believe in God and I know what it was like to gradually dismiss this belief. There were points in my life where a version of this phrase could have been applied to my experience, but those versions didn’t include the word “atheist”--they applied to a pre-atheist label.

Maybe it's There are no lapsed Christians in foxholes.

For a long while I identified as Christian without any intention of attending church. I believed Jesus was a good example to live by and still entertained the idea of the resurrection. In retrospect, it’s an odd state to be in to only kind of believe Biblical miracles. They are so outside the realm of our experience that I’d think belief in them should be all or nothing; either have complete faith in your indoctrination or soberly dismiss magic in a nonmagical world.

During this time I met the periodic hardships of life and, occasionally, prayed. It was a half admission of helplessness from someone who was too stubborn to be helpless. My “foxholes” came in the form of untreatable pain whether it be personal injuries that medicine couldn’t treat fast enough or, more often, my Christian Scientist mother hurting and unwilling to use medication in the first place. I was further disillusioned by the lack of results from my prayer. I could see this stage in my life lasting longer or even re-upping my Christianity if my prayers were coincidentally answered or I was less aware of probability. Luckily, I knew what confirmation bias was before I knew what it was called. Instead, I dropped the Christian label and moved on to a non-committal religious opinion.

Or how about There are no agnostics in foxholes.

It can be argued that we are all agnostics in that none of us know whether or not a god exists, but it’s clear that some of us think we know. Commonly, agnostics admit that they don’t know and are even unsure of their own belief one way or the other. In that way, I can see the agnostics trying prayer during “foxhole” moments. At this point in my life I really had no expectation that prayer would work, and I don’t recall ever praying as an agnostic, but I also had a “why not” and a “it couldn’t hurt” attitude toward other people praying. If Pascal’s Wager ever had an application, it would be for an agnostic in a dire situation, but to cover his or her bases, he or she should pray to every possible God.

Which brings us back to atheism. What truth does the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes” hold? Not much. The gut reaction for the uninitiated to agree with the line is a misunderstanding of terms. The dismissal of gods in a society that largely believes in them isn’t an emotional decision, it’s an intellectual one. Likewise it will take an intellectual enterprise to alter that decision, the emotional fear of the unknown need not apply.

Disclaimer: Of course, I can’t speak for all atheists. I can imagine, for instance, that self-proclaimed atheists with little reason behind their atheism outside of a rebellion against their theistic parents may be moved to alter their beliefs by emotional stress. To theists I can only say that you are considerably less qualified to speak for atheists than I and to claim “there are no atheists in foxholes” is to universally do just that.

Morality? What Morality?

Atheists usually argue that morality is subjective because, well, theists argue that morality is objective. Some atheists also argue this because they accept the reality that people define their morality in different ways. This is undebatably the way it is, but doesn’t have to be. If everyone defined morality identically, it could be objective sans deity. Apologists claim that God is needed for a moral standard. The way I see it, a moral standard is needed and this standard not only needn't be God, but it can’t be God.

I define right conduct as simply that which benefits others more than it harms. Wrong conduct is obviously that which harms others more than it benefits. This is a moral standard. From here we can take any action and determine it’s morality objectively. Going on a shooting spree causes direct harm to everyone hit and therefore is morally wrong. Stopping the shooter benefits all those who would have been hit and is therefore morally right. Even if one must kill the shooter to save the rest, it is a morally right action because a greater benefit comes from the one instance of harm. Few would say that this isn't a more nuanced and correct application of morality then strictly following the commandment "thou shalt not kill."

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God--hold on, y'know I don’t want to generalize.

If there is a Christian within the sight of my text who both believes our morality is evidence for God yet doesn’t use a specific definition of morality in terms of God, please comment or e-mail me. Any definitions referring to the nature of God or an obligation to God are obviously invalid.

Okay, if and when I hear back from someone I’ll update, until then I’ll continue.

Christian’s define morality in terms of God then use that definition of morality as evidence for God. This is textbook circular reasoning which is completely invalid. The Christian doesn’t believe morality exists as I define it and I don’t believe morality exists as they define it. When whether or not this or that version of morality exists is put into question, it makes debate over its objectivity mute. All we can do is bring into focus their fallacious thinking--which is almost always met with defensivness. It’s best to be gentle when pointing out to someone their mental record is skipping.*

*Wow, timely reference. Maybe I should have gone with “their mental streaming video is buffering.” That’s awful wordy. I feel old.

Trust Less That Which You Agree

I was listening to the Geologic Podcast’s Religious Morons of the Week segment in which host George Hrab highlights the most ridiculous or hypocritical stories involving people of faith. There was a reported moron a couple weeks ago who convinced followers that his semen was holy and a divine benefit would come from swallowing it. If you have listened to the segment as long as I have, you’d know that this moron isn’t completely unbelievable. There have been many folks who have leveaged their religious authority to trick their followers into sex, especially those from fring cults. This moron was less subtle in it’s connection to specifically blowjobs, enough so that I should have questioned it more than I did. This particular moron didn't exist.

The following week, George admitted that he misreported the story. In fact, it was made up by an Onion-like satirical website. Generally, listeners email Hrab stories to read and he reads them. He bought the lie just as I did because it fell in line with our biases. George, like myself, prides himself as a skeptic, so this is a slap in the face to both of us.

But, hey, good lesson to learn. If a theist said something unusual about atheists that reinforced his view of us, my skepicism would’ve probably been working just fine. If an atheist says something unusual about the religious that reinforces my view that some of them are mainipulative with their beliefs, I have to try to be even more skeptical than I normally would to adjust for my bias.

Holy blowjobs, yeah.

Putting the "c" Back in Schmeity

Link to related content they tell me. Research SEO they tell me. Post daily and engage readers they tell me. Bah! I have ideas of my own, successful blog people! Here’s one: I’ll scale back on content creation while simultaneously starting a new blog!

And this is why they don’t invite me to Blogging Conferences.

Let me back-up. I started Deity Shmeity with the intention of posting my thoughts on various religious topics for reference when arguing with apologists. It was to be a debating database, if you will, but over time that changed. Interview projects, cross-post throwdowns and my personal struggle with Attention Deficient Disorder all contributed to the evolution of this site’s purpose. That is, if you believe in evolution.

Turns out I had a lot to say on Deity Shmeity. I posted everyday for some time. Then I posted every weekday. Then thrice weekly. Now twice. I still have stuff to say, don’t get me wrong, but clearly not as much. There are only so many ways to say that God isn't real. In an effort to avoid filling these digital pages with unoriginal ideas and C-material, I’m scaling back to a commitment of one post a week with a likelihood of two. I’m thinking a Monday and/or Wednesday schedule. I figure this is better than burning myself out grasping for every atheist thought in my head until I finally stop writing altogether. (Looking at you, Johnny Reason.) Actually, a bunch of atheist blogs suffer creative heat death on the web. Who am I kidding? Most blogs in general suffer the same fate. What’s cool about the atheist blogosphere is that for every blog that goes under, two more take it’s place. I do routine searches for atheist blogs and find new ones launching every week. That’s the momentum of god-skeptics in our culture and why I feel, as my tagline clearly states, that one day we’ll all be atheists.

That said, only a maniac would start a new blog while admitting his post tank is running dry, right? Color me maniacal. I’ve recently set up a Wordpress site to serve as a more polished outlet for my stuff. I even spelled it how most people think this site should be spelled--Deity Schmeity. Where Deity Shmeity will continue to have new, amaturely written, short-form posts; Deity Schmeity will have old, professionally edited, long-form articles. Confusing, yes? Perfect!

Links Shminks #14

There is a petition to change back U.S.A.'s motto to "E Pluribus Unum." I always liked that motto even though I never grew up with it. If you live in the States and want it to be just a little more secular, sign-up! (via A Particular Atheist)

God is a Myth did a two parter on stupid things in the Bible's creation story.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart John Oliver aired a bit with Samantha Bee making fun of Christian's perceived persecution.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Ah, the ol' lice argument for evolution. A classic.

Jesus is an asshole. (via LadyAtheist)

Freedom to Offend is taking the Geologic Podcast bit Religious Morons of the Week and makes them into comics.

Christian Domestic Discipline, because Christians just had too good a rep with feminists.

The micro/macro evolution distinction explained by fish people.

And finally, I've been listening to The Lonely Island's Wack Album and enjoying it thoroughly. This video is nothing new, but if you think about it YOLO is an atheist message. There's probably no afterlife, so I'd stay away from furniture.

Faora Doesn't Get Evolution

I admit, I’m a strange bird. I’m always keeping an eye out for content for this blog which has me coloring even the most secular interactions in my day-to-day as metaphors for religion. When I see something that inherently does have religious themes, I’m so distracted about how to leverage it into a post that I stop living in the moment. This weeks opening movie, Man of Steel, has inherent Christian themes--yet I barely realized until retrospection. This goes to show, as much as I think about Jesus, I think even more about Superman.

Spoilers follow.

Sure, Man of Steel depicts Kal-El as a miraculous birth who grows up to stand beside stainglass windows of JC and float out of space ships crucifixion-style, but as I said before, I barely noticed in the awesomeness that is Superman. The only thing that bothered me enough to take me out of the flick was a mid-fight speech in which General Zod’s right-hand woman waxed poetic about the merits of evolution over morality. To sum up, she said that their military core of Kryptonians had evolved past the more primitive concept of morality and that history shows that evolutionary progress always wins. *Heavy sigh.* Can’t we save the evolution talk for the X-Men? It’s kinda their thing.

Faora, Zod’s follower, has an oversimplified view of the Theory of Evolution that I would expect from a Christian fundamentalist, but not so much from a member of a highly advanced civilization. First off, it’s nonsensical to say that only Zod’s sect is lacking in morality seeing how Kryptonians at large clearly have morals--see exhibit A, Jor-El. Evolution doesn't so dramatically effect a threesome of criminals and leave out the general pop. It just doesn't work that way.

Second, Zod has a sense of morality, just not the sense of morality. He clearly cares for the people of Krypton in that his purpose until the final battle is to either save them or repopulate them. It could be argued that Zod only cared about certain bloodlines, but then so did Jor-El. Super-Dad opts to save his own bloodline while Zod, presumably, could have saved many, just not all. (I realize that Jor-El allowed for future generations of Kryptonian bloodlines through the Codex in Kal-El’s cells, but that eventuality is a long-shot compared to Zod's pro-active use of the Codex.)

And third, the message is oversimplified to the point of falsehood. “Evolving past morality” implies that we also evolved to morality. This means, to her villainous logic, that altruism is a trait that was once selected for survival, but then stopped being selected. I can’t think of how that such a change could have occurred within the Phantom Zone--especially when only a single generation was trapped. If I didn’t know better, I’d say Feora was victim of a Texan education.

Of course, I’m over thinking this, but propagating a message that couldn’t be true in their world or ours to a theater-going public that already largely buys into it is a bad thing. It’s made worse when churches are capitalizing on it by quoting the film as part of their Jesus was the first superhero campaign. I just hope Man of Steel 2 isn’t subtitled “The Passion of the Clark.”