Coachella Music Festival, April 29-30, 2006

I just won a Sunday ticket to Coachella on EBay. For those who don't know, it is currently the #1 music festival in the world. I'm going see Tool and Paul Oakenfold, among others.

Anyone else going? Wanna meet up at the event and have a beer? Post a comment and let me know!

Center For Inquiry - West: Cafe Inquiry With Brian Flemming

Last night, at the Center For Inquiry West in Hollywood, was the opening night of "Cafe Inquiry," a European Cafe-style discussion with a prominent speaker from a given field. The guest speaker for their opening night was Brian Flemming, famed director of The God Who Wasn't There documentary.

The Center For Inquiry West is also home of the Steve Allen Theater, where many lectures and performances are held from a skeptical point of view. The CFI building is a very nice facility, with an outdoor patio, a bookstore, a library, and even a coffee/snack bar.

When my date and I arrived, we were warmly greeted by the Chief Operating Officer, Robert C. Ladendorf. He showed me the facility, gave me the details about Brian Flemming's appearance, and invited me to have some complimentary wine from the snack bar. Hello! I couldn't refuse free wine. What a great place!

Shortly before the discussion was to officially begin, I saw Brian Flemming talking with some people near the snack bar. Mr. Ladendorf was kind enough to introduce me to Mr. Flemming. To my semi-surprise, Brian already knew my name! He remembered me from the War On Easter mission that I did not too long ago. Brian mentioned a few specific areas of Los Angeles that he recalled me hitting, and we talked and laughed about various War On Easter missions. I then told him my story about when I went to see The God Who Wasn't There at it's first Los Angeles showing at a nearby Hollywood Theater, and how, when I was crossing the street to get to the theater, a Scientologist tried to give me a pass to see some stupid film called "L. Ron Hubbard: A Life Portrait" at the Scientology Center right next to the theater, and how I laughed in the Scientologist's face and said "Boy did you come up to the wrong guy!"

After having a nice conversation with Brian, the discussion got underway. It was mostly Q and A with some ideas being tossed back and forth. There were only about 15 people there, which made for a nice discussion-friendly atmosphere. The discussion started at 8pm. Brian discussed his aggressive atheist evangelical tactics, and the War on Easter, and many other atheistic things. The people in attendance also had a lot to say as well regarding their atheist evangelical tactics and ideas. Lots of good information all around.

Brian Flemming is a very approachable and charismatic guy. He makes a great speaker because he is disarming, friendly, and quick on his feet with his thoughts. One of the attendees even mentioned his disarming nature during the discussion, so I know I'm not the only one who got that impression.

I wanted to ask Brian a few questions, but I figured that I had all night to do so, and I was in no rush to speak up. I was honestly having a great time just listening to everyone else speak, which is somewhat unusual for me since I am an alpha-male and I tend to speak my mind quite a bit in face-to-face discussions. But then tragedy struck, and foiled my plans.

9 pm came so quickly that I didn't even realize it. My date, who is also an atheist, told me that she was getting very hungry. I was surprised because I assumed she had already eaten before coming to the discussion, but she hadn't. Now, the CFI West facility has a coffee and snack bar, but they only took cash, and we only had credit cards! For once, technology backfired on me. I really didn't want to go anywhere, but my date was insistent on getting some food. Dammit! My night with CFI and Brian Flemming was being cut short!

I stalled for about 15 minutes, but my date was losing her patience, and her stomach was growling. So at 9:15 I got ready to leave. I walked up to Robert and thanked him for a wonderful coffeehouse-style discussion, and told him that I was looking forward to stopping by again sometime soon. I grabbed my date and headed towards the exit. Brian Flemming was still in the middle of the discussion with the other guests of course, and I didn't want to interrupt them even though I wanted to tell Brian "good work!" and say goodbye personally. So on my way out the door, I looked in Brian's Direction and waved, and he saw me and waved back.

I felt like such a tool having to leave so early. I hope nobody there thought I was bored or didn't want to stay, which certainly wasn't the case! It was an all around great experience (except for the part where my date acquired an appetite).

The Center For Inquiry West is going to be having these Cafe Inquiry discussions on a monthly basis. They plan on having all kinds of prominent skeptic and atheist speakers, and the atmosphere is very friendly, inviting, and inclusive.

To any and all Kill The Afterlife readers in the Los Angeles area: I strongly encourage you to check out the Center For Inquiry West. It is at 4773 Hollywood Boulevard, two stoplights west of Vermont. Stop by and meet Robert Ladendorf, the Chief Operating Officer. He is a great guy. While you are there, pick up their flyer that lists coming attractions. Be sure not to miss the future Cafe Inquiry events, which promise to be very enjoyable. You can sign up for the email bulletins or snail mail newsletters here.

Also, for all you statists out there, Eddie Tabash is speaking on Sunday, May 7th, about the separation of Church and State. I am thinking of attending that event as well, even though I'm an anarchist, because Eddie Tabash is another great atheist who has "thrown down" with many theological big shots. I figure I may even be able to score a few points for the elimination of the State, therefore making "separation of Church and State" a moot point.

My Easter Present

Look what just came for me in the mail!



It says:

"Aaron, Go Without God. Brian Flemming"

Thank you Brian Flemming!!!!!

Kill Moral Relativism

This entry is part of the perpetual War on Moral Relativism.

What is moral relativism? It is the belief that there is no factual moral standard, and that any given moral system is as "valid" as the other (or depending on how you look at it, none of them are valid). Moral relativism violates so many logical rules that it’s hard to know where to begin killing it. I have decided that the best place for me to start is at the individual (self-ownership) level.

First, we need to take a quick look at fact-based individualistic morality, and the best way to familiarize oneself with that is by reading the wonderfully illustrated entry from Hellbound Alleee called "Sally and Cy: Morality in Action!"

Now that you've read the illustrated tale of Sally and Cy, let's review: Morality is about making good or bad choices. Good choices fulfill one's values, while bad choices do not. Since reality is based on fact, values are also based on fact. For example, if you value your cat, you cannot fulfill that value without taking care of said cat. And taking care of a cat requires actions based on facts: cats need certain kinds of food; cats need a suitable place to poop, and cats need affection and stimulation. Only certain actions can fulfill the cat's needs, like providing cat food and a clean litter box and cat toys. Doing these things is the only way to fulfill one's pet cat values.

Values are contextual, but they are still fact-based. Some moral relativists mistake the fact that people have different values for moral relativism, when in fact it is simply contextualism. While many values are shared by all humans, some are not. That means that while Sally may value her cat Cy, Aaron Kinney (that's me!) may value his Mustang GT instead. Just because Sally and Aaron don't have all the same values doesn't mean that morality is relative. Both Sally's cat value and Aaron's Mustang value require specific fact-based actions in order for those values to be fulfilled. Sally's cat needs food, and Aaron's Mustang needs gasoline.

There is another important aspect to a fact-based morality: individualism. Individualism is based on self-ownership. In other words, you own yourself because you are yourself. Individualism rejects other-ownership because you are not anyone other than yourself. Kind of self-explanatory, right? But you'd be surprised how often people fail to recognize such a basic concept when moral issues are discussed. With individualism, every individual is sovereign. While an individual has every right to make himself fulfill his own values, he does not have a right to force any other person to fulfill his values.

With individualism, consent is paramount. Forcing an individual to do something without his consent is immoral, because morality is about individual value fulfillment, and forcing another against their will violates their values. It is immoral for Aaron to force Sally to pay for his Mustang just as it is immoral for Sally to force Aaron to take care of her cat, because in both situations, an individual's value fulfillment is being restricted or denied.

Some moral relativists will protest, and say "but it isn't immoral in Sally's morality for her to force Aaron to take care of her cat, and therefore morality is relative!" But that is a totally erroneous statement because it violates the law of identity. Sally only owns herself; she does not own Aaron. Similarly, Aaron only owns himself; he does not own Sally. Both Aaron and Sally only have the right to make decisions about their own actions, not anybody else’s, because they only own their individual selves.

In a fact-based individualist morality, just about the only thing immoral is coercion. Coercion is the forcing of one's values onto another: things like theft, cheating, murder, threats, etc. are all coercive. Coercion is wrong because it violates individualism; it is the attempt to force, or effectively "own," someone else (or at least their values). Since you are only you, and not someone else, you only inherently own yourself. You do not inherently own anyone else, and have no right to coerce them to do anything or violate their consent.

Fact-based individualistic morality is not based on whether a cat or a Mustang is a better value. To claim that a Mustang is a better value than a cat disregards contextuality. In other words, valuable to whom? What it is based on is principles or rules, namely, the principles and rules that I described above. Think of values as variables in an algebra equation. Value "X" can be a cat or a Mustang, but that doesn't make morality any more relative than the laws of mathematics are relative. These variables (or values) must still operate along the universal, fact-based laws of mathematics (or moral rules).

These principles are all universal in the same way that the laws of physics are universal. A very important tool for use in determining the universality of morality is the Moral Razor.

The Moral Razor states: A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons).

This Moral Razor makes use of universality the same way that logic and physics make use of universality. If the laws of thermodynamics exist on Earth, then they exist everywhere. If the laws of logic exist on Earth, then they exist everywhere.

Where do we stand now? We have recognized self-ownership (and rejected other-ownership), we have recognized that values are based on facts, and we have recognized the universality of moral rules. This brings us to a fact-based individualistic morality, where each individual is as sovereign as the next, consent is paramount, and coercion is immoral.

So kiss moral relativity goodbye! Say goodbye to moral systems based on asymmetrical sets of dictates from cosmic slave drivers. Say goodbye to coercion, force, and anything that violates the sovereignty of the individual. Say goodbye to lame-duck attempts at justifying different sets of moral rules for different individuals.

Kill Moral Relativism.

War on Easter in Los Angeles

War on Easter in Los Angeles

Note: today is the one year (and two days) anniversary of Kill The Afterlife, and to celebrate, I will post pictures for the first time ever!

Yesterday, April 14, I conducted a mission for the War on Easter in the city of Los Angeles. My supplies included one God Who Wasn't There DVD with a special message inside, and a fistful of flyers.





The first church I visited was the Woodland Hills Community Church:



Nobody was there, and the doors were all locked. So I left a few flyers, including this one on the outside bulletin board:



Next I visited the Church of Christ and the In His Presence Church.





The Church of Christ was all locked up, but In His Presence was open and getting ready for Easter. However, there were too many people inside In His Presence, and I couldn't plant anything nor take any photos except the one of the sign that I captured out front.

The last church I hit was St. Francis de Sales in Sherman Oaks.



When I arrived at the church, there were some people on the grounds, but they appeared to be leaving. I waited for them to get in their car and drive away, and then I walked up to the church. I saw a sign above a gate on the side of the building that indicated a school, and figured it would be a perfect place for an Easter flier:



There was a piece of paper taped to the door of the church that said the Friday afternoon service was about an hour away. I tried to open the door, but it was locked. It had been raining in Los Angeles most of the day, but the rain had paused and the sun had broken through the clouds for just a moment. The sun would soon set, and another churchgoer would be arriving any minute. I decided to leave my Easter present at the front door:





A fistful of flyers and one anti-afterlife DVD deployed.

BlackSun Journal on Pope Benedict

BlackSun offers an excellent analysis of Pope Benedict and the evil of the Catholic Church. Here is a snip:

The way I see it, Pope Benedict and his church are evil incarnate. They, along with radical Islam, have become the very definition of evil in the modern world.

It gets even better than that. Go read the whole thing.

Aaron Kinney Booted From Jury Duty

I just completed jury duty. They dismissed me for my individualist and free market views, which is a good thing. Check it out at The Radical Libertarian.

Aaron Kinney to Appear on CARM Radio

I know its not much of an advance notice, but I will be appearing this evening on CARM Radio at 5:00 PM Pacific time. I will be talking with Matt Slick about atheism and Christianity. Specifically, I wish to bring up the topic of original sin, as I have found this topic to be rather interesting as of late.

Tune in to the radio show and listen!

UPDATE: the link to the CARM site seemed to be broken. I fixed it. I'm still trying to get an MP3 copy of the show as well.

The War on Easter

I like to think of atheistic evangelizing as a perpetual War on Superstition or War on the Afterlife. Beyond Belief Media and The Rational Response Squad are after my own heart, because they just took this war to the next level by declaring a War on Easter!

It is a campaign to photograph the planting of 666 copies of the #1 independent documentary on Amazon.com, The God Who Wasn't There, in various churches around the country by Easter Sunday. Ideally, these DVDs will be discovered by a worshipper during the Easter Sunday worship service or by children hunting for Easter eggs.

What a great way to Kill The Afterlife! So how about it, atheists? I know you all have a copy of this movie, and I know you all live near a bunch of churches.

The Raving Atheist Critiques Aaron Kinney's Asymmetry Argument

Two posts at my blog today. I think I'm experiencing some kind of short-term posting binge! Anyway, on to the topic:

The Raving Atheist posted a few critiques of my "The Asymmetry of Immaterialism" post. Right off the bat, I want to thank RA for his consideration of my argument, and for the critique he provided. I hope to be able to answer his critique, as well as clarify a few ambiguities that he pointed out.

RA starts off with listing my four "asymmetrical" statements. I will repost them here for the convenience of my readers:

(1) For you to be in my line of sight, I need not be in your line of sight.
(2) To hold up this 10 pound object, I need not exert any force.

(3) It is wrong for me to murder you, but it is not wrong for you to murder me.

(4) I am your Son, but you are not my Father.

RA then begins his critique of each of my four statements:

I think this analysis is flawed for a number of reasons. Some of the statements may be false because they involve contradictions, but this has nothing to do with their symmetry or asymmetry.

First, the "asymmetry" of a proposition does not prove its falsity. AK seems to be asserting that the converse of every true statement must also be true, but that's not simply not the case. It may sometimes be the case, but that can only be determined by examining the nature of the proposition.

It may seem to be that I am asserting that the converse of every true statement must also be true, but that is not what I am asserting. What I am asserting is that when you make a statement involving two entities and their interaction between each other, both entities must conform to the preconditions that the interaction requires. In other words, both entities involved in the interaction must have symmetry in regards to the preconditions that each entity meets. A good example for this "symmetry" demand is in my first asymmetrical example.

Speaking of my first asymmetrical example, RA has this to say:

Example (1) is false simply because we know, empirically, that light travels in a straight line (mostly) and that two objects on the same line must thus be in the same line of sight. But if we preserve the "asymmetry" and change the statement just a little, we can form a true statement such as "for you to be looking at me, I need not be looking at you."

The straightness or curviness of the path of light is irrelevant to my statement (1), but it doesn't look like RA is challenging it on those grounds. In fact, RA is challenging it by tweaking my statement from having line of sight, to choosing to observe said line of sight. At this point, I am not sure if RA understands what I mean when I talk of "asymmetry".

It is logically impossible for entity A to be in the "line of sight" of entity B without entity B also being in the line of sight of entity A. Whether or not either of these entities chooses to observe or look through said line of sight is irrelevant. And as I said earlier, the straightness or curviness of the path of light is also irrelevant. Note that my argument from the line of sight is only making a claim of symmetry; of both entities being "symmetrical" by meeting the same preconditions required by the interaction in question.

To elaborate: For entity A to be capable of seeing (interaction) entity B, entity B must meet the preconditions of said interaction. In other words, entity B must be in the line of sight of entity A. However, entity B cannot be in the line of sight of entity A without entity A also being in the line of sight of entity B, because the interaction (seeing) has a precondition that both entities must meet (line of sight) before any interaction can begin. Whether or not both entities "choose" to "see" each other is irrelevant, and after all, without a line of sight available between the two, the "choice" of whether or not to "see" each other would not even be available.

RA continues to statement (2):

Example (2) is false because we know, empirically, in a gravitational field, force must be applied to keep an object from falling. But again, a slight modification -- changing the weight term to one of mass -- could convert it into an asymmetrical but nonetheless true statement: "To hold up this 10 kilogram object, I need not exert any force." Astronauts do that all the time in zero-gravity situations.

Actually, in a zero gravity environment, force must still be applied to contain or control objects, and that force must be equal to (or greater than) the object's force that one is trying to change. Just because a ten kilogram object is in outer space, doesn't mean that it needs no force applied to it in order to be contained, controlled, or otherwise interacted with. Even in zero gravity, fuel must still be burnt to change the velocity of rocket ships, for example.

Consider also the comment from Axel_621 in regards to force being applied to objects:

I'd like to point out that if an immaterial entity exerts force on a material object, then the material object is also applying force to the immaterial entity by default. If this were not so, then no force could be applied to the material object by the immaterial entity.

So true, so true.

Now we continue to RA's critique of my statement (3):

Example (3) is false (to the extent moral statements have a truth value) only because "murder" implies a wrong, or at least a legal wrong. But the symmetry of the "who kills who" aspect of it is irrelevant. There are plenty of situations in which it would be right for one person to kill another, but not vice versa -- a police officer would be justified in killing a sniper or suicide bomber. And statements of the "it is wrong for me to X you, but it is not wrong for you to X me" are true in countless situations despite the asymmetry. It's fine for a small child to sit on its parent's lap, but the adult doesn't have the same privilege.

I think RA got confused here between the words "kill" and "murder". RA is right that "murder" implies a wrong. In fact, it implies coercion, and I chose to use the word "murder" very deliberately. RA is also right that "[t]here are plenty of situations in which it would be right for one person to kill another, but not vice versa," because the word "kill" is not morally contextual; it is not as specific as "murder" is, for "murder" is a specific kind of killing - a wrongful one.

For a moral statement to be true, it must adhere to The Moral Razor. According to Francois Tremblay:

The Moral Razor is this :
A moral principle or system, or a political principle or system, is invalid if it is asymmetrical in application (to locations, times or persons).

Which means that if it is immoral for person A to initiate coercion (like murder, theft, or whatever), against person B, then it is also wrong for person B to initiate coercion against person A. What it means, is that all conscious entities must operate by the same moral rules in the same way that all material entities must operate under the same laws of physics.

In response to RA's charge that "a police officer would be justified in killing a sniper or suicide bomber," I again will quote from Francois Tremblay's Moral Razor argument:

There is one exception, and that is when we are looking at scenarios where a valid rule was already broken. Arresting someone when no crime was committed is asymmetrical, but arresting someone who initiated force is a different scenario. In this case we are looking not at a political principle - which is what the Razor is about - but rather at the consequence of breaking such a principle. In that case I would argue that, as long as no other asymmetry is present, singling out initiators of force should not be seen as breaking the Razor a priori.

In RA's critique, he mentions snipers and bombers. I am assuming that he means an immoral, coercive sniper like Lee Harvey Oswald, or an immoral, coercive bomber like the Unabomber. In this case, since these snipers and bombers already broke the rules of morality, then a coercive response from security forces is justified.

So what is my point about RA's critique of my statement (3)? That RA has failed to show that a moral rule can apply to person A but not person B, and that RA has failed to show a valid example of moral asymmetry. RA's use of the word "kill" was not contextual, his argument involving the police stopping a sniper or bomber is actually compatible with my moral argument (as well as Francois' Moral Razor), and my claim that symmetry is necessary is still valid: that for any interaction between two entities, both entities must adhere to the demands set forth by the interaction for said interaction to take place.

RA then continues to statement (4):

Example (4), as a commentor pointed out, may be true as it stands because the "you" may be the son's mother (I thought everyone knew this riddle). Furthermore, the effect of the symmetry in relationships between people is very fact-sensitive. "I am your sibling, but you are not my sibling" is always false, whereas "I am your brother, but you are not my brother" is only sometimes true (where there's a sister). And returning to the actual example given, we can see that "I am your son, and you are my father" is less symmetric than "I am your son, and you are my son," but experience teaches us that the first is true and the second is not.

RA really did get me here. He pointed out a problem with my statement that I overlooked. I mistakenly said "son" and "father" when I should have said "child" and "parent". Allow me to correct it right now:

Symmetrical:

(4) I am your child, and you are my parent.

Asymmetrical:

(4) I am your child, but you are not my parent.

Is it now more clear how the "symmetrical" statement is logically true, while the "asymmetrical" statement is not?

RA then addresses my claim that for material and immaterial entities to interact, both entities must be symmetrical in that they both meet the same preconditions required by said interaction:

Which bring us to the question of whether, as AK insists, there is a necessary symmetry between the ability of material and immaterial things to observe and test one another. I don't see why this would be so. This supposed rule doesn't even hold between material entities. I can observe and test a rock, but that doesn't mean the rock can observe and test me.

RA's statement regarding a rock is factually incorrect. For a human to test a rock, the human can touch it or see it (via light waves reflecting off of the rock), or something else. But does the same hold true for the rock testing a human? Of course it does! If a rock touches a human, isn't it true that the rock applies force to the human? And isn't it true that when a rock is within the line of sight of a human, that the human is also within the line of sight of the rock? Isn't it true that when light waves are reflecting off a rock and hitting a human, at the same time there are light waves reflecting off the human and hitting the rock? One may protest, "but the rock has no eyes!" But this is irrelevant, for the light waves are indeed reflecting off both the human and the rock and hitting each other nonetheless. The rock has visual observation of the human available to it whenever the human has visual observation of the rock available to him. And just as Axel_621 noted, whenever a force is applied, an opposite force is applied back. So if I were to touch a rock (apply force), the rock is touching me also (also applying force).

Again, we come back to the principle of symmetry. Between two entities (human and rock), both entities must meet the same preconditions (line of sight, application of force), set forth by the claimed interaction for said interaction to actually occur.

RA then critiques my claims regarding interaction itself:

AK also talks more broadly about interaction between material and immaterial things, again reasoning that if somethingness can't affect nothingness, nothingness shouldn't be able to affect somethingness. If I can't pick up a ghost, a ghost can't pick up me. The problem with this logic, is logic itself. Logic is immaterial, and yet AK insists that it governs the possibility of interaction between all things in all situations. And all of science is premised upon the existence of invisible "laws" which somehow infallibly direct the workings of all matter. Numbers, too, are immaterial, but play a large role in our interactions with the universe. I can't interact with the number 2, change the laws of gravity or violate laws of logic, but they still affect me quite profoundly (even if they're not omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent or even conscious).

We now come to a fundamental difference between RA and myself that runs deeper than I initially expected. RA believes that logic is immaterial. I could not disagree more. Logic is material in the same way that all meta-data is material. Properties of material entities are material as well, and that includes logic.

RA is also factually wrong about interacting with the number "2". RA interacts with the number "2" every time he imagines it. Concepts are just as material as software on your hard drive. It is meta-data, or data that describes data. Meta-data is just as material as the material that it is composed of. Are the songs on a Compact Disc immaterial? No, they are the meta-data of all the little bumps and valleys found on the surface of the disc.

Gravity is material, and the law of gravity is the concept that humans create in order to help understand gravity itself. The law of gravity is a material concept comprised of meta-data that is used to explain and understand a particular property of material matter/energy (that property is gravity). Just as the property of gravity is as material as the matter that produces it, concepts are just as material as the matter and energy that imagines them (the human brain).

I believe that my symmetry argument remains intact through RA's critique, in part because he didn't seem to fully understand it, also due in part to a bit of ambiguity and incorrect assumptions of entity descriptors (son instead of child, father instead of parent), on my part. I hope that I have cleared all that up. Note that my argument of symmetry does not mean that I claim that the converse of the given statement must be true. It only means that when two entities want to play together (interact), they must obey the same rules.

For clarification, my asymmetry argument against immaterialism's undetectability goes like this:

For two entities to interact, both entities must by symmetrical in that they both meet the same preconditions set forth by said interaction for the interaction to occur.

I would like to thank The Raving Atheist for critiquing my argument. I hope my response serves as good food for thought, and I invite more critiques from RA as well as anyone else who wants to take a shot at it. I am more than happy to listen to, and respond to, any critique of my arguments, so bring 'em on!

A Defining Moment

Paul Manata chimed in on my recent post, "The Asymmetry of Immaterliasm". Because I did not define the terms "materialist" and "immaterialist," Paul thought he could destroy my entire argument by defining the terms for me in the comments section:

a materialist believes that all that exists is matter.

an immaterialist believes all that exists is immaterial.

So, this argument was not against people like me.

Anyway, I'd try to learn how to use terms, mkay?

I'm not as much of a stickler as Paul, but since he is alleging that I don't know how to use terms, I feel the need to hold him to his own standard. In his inability to use terms properly, Paul fails to clarify what "people like [him]" are defined as. At any rate, is rather amusing to see this coming from Paul, especially considering that Paul once told me "all" does not always mean "all" when I used the "all men are sinners" objection to the "Jesus is 100% man and 100% God" argument. Maybe Paul's God should learn how to define His terms when He is inspiring the writing of Holy Books?

Not to mention the one time when I said something like "the whole world..." as an exaggeration, and Paul painted it like I literally meant every single person on the Earth. The lesson to be learned here is that, according to Paul's rules, every person's statements must be taken 100% literally, except for Paul himself and the Bible that he believes in. Sorry, but Paul's rule violates the principle of symmetry. If Paul gets to pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken figuratively, then so do I.

I made the mistake of assuming that everyone would know what I'm talking about when I said "immaterialist". Obviously, I gave some (or one) of my readers too much credit. So I quickly defined my terms to clear up any confusion:

Materialist: One who believes all that exists is material.

Immaterialist: One who believes all that exists is either material or immaterial.

However, I thought it might be fun to take this logic of Paul's even further. Let's take Paul's "to the letter" style of term definition and apply it to another commonly used term!

Christian: One who believes that all that exists is Christ.

Proof that Christians are (third party) nihilists!

The true irony is that even without the "to the letter" term definition used above, Christians really are nihilists, because they believe that the consciousness of God (subject) has primacy over existence (object), and therefore everything only exists because God's mind wills it to be. Or in other words, everything that exists (besides God Himself) only exists within the mind of God. That's third party nihilism, folks!