15

Yes, Conservatives, Islam Is a Religion

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
331 comments | Share | Flag

I've noticed on the site lately, more and more comments by our more conservative and religious members speaking about the evil of Islam. I've wanted to reply to many of those commenters and posters about the topic of this article, and after reading this article, I'm glad I waited. I couldn't have said it any better. It's not Islam that's the problem--it's religion.



"If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must accurately identify Islam for what it is. It’s a religion.

Why does it matter whether we call this religion a religion? It matters (among other reasons) because recognizing Islam as a religion is the first step in dealing with the problem of jihad—a problem that is much broader than the tenets of Islam calling for the submission or murder of infidels. As I show in “Islamic Jihad and Western Faith,” the fundamental problem is not the specific tenets of Islam, but the idea that faith is a means of knowledge.

'If people can know by means of faith that God exists, what He wills to be true, that His will is the moral law, and what He commands people to do, then they can know literally anything to be true. If a person’s “spiritual sense” tells him that God says he should love his neighbor, then he knows he should love his neighbor. If it tells him that God says he should love his enemies, then he knows he should love them. If it tells him that God says he should turn the other cheek if someone strikes him, then he knows what to do when that happens. If it tells him that God says to kill his son, then he knows he must do so. If it later tells him that God says not to kill his son, then he knows he should not. If it tells him that God says he should convert or kill unbelievers, then he knows he should convert or kill unbelievers. If it tells him that God says the Koran is the word of God and that if he fails to believe and obey every word of it he will burn in hell, then he knows that to be true. . . .

Either faith is a means of knowledge, or it is not. If it is a means of knowledge, then it is a means of knowledge. If faith is a means of divining truth, then whatever anyone divines by means of faith is by that fact true. If faith is a means of knowledge, then the tenets of Islam—which are “known” by means of faith—are true, in which case Muslims should convert or kill infidels. By what standard can an advocate of faith say otherwise? . . .

To lend credence to the notion that faith is a means of knowledge is to support and encourage Islamic regimes and jihadist groups at the most fundamental level possible: the epistemological level. It is to say to them, in effect: “Whatever our disagreements, your method of arriving at truth and knowledge is correct.” Well, if their method is correct, how can the content they “know” by means of it be incorrect?'

If Westerners want to win the cultural war against Islam, we must be willing to recognize—and to openly acknowledge—the fundamental and relevant truths of the matter. Those truths include the fact that Islam is a religion, and the fact that faith is not a means of knowledge.

Conservatives are uncomfortable with these facts because they are religious themselves, and they want religion and faith to be good things. But discomfort with facts doesn’t alter them. And wanting things to be good doesn’t make them so.

The solution to discomfort arising from the fact that Islam is a religion is not to pretend that Islam is not a religion, but to recognize and accept the fact that religion as such is inherently irrational and potentially murderous because it posits a non-rational means of knowledge."



Let's see what others think of this approach to solving the problems of conflicts with ISLAM.

Is Islam any more wrong in that origin of knowledge, than Christianity or Judaism or any other source of supernatural knowledge?
SOURCE URL: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2015/06/yes-conservatives-islam-is-a-religion/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 3 months ago
    "If faith is a means of divining truth, then what-
    ever anyone divines by meant of faith is by that
    fact true."...Oh, no. Only if you have faith in the
    RIGHT thing. Of course, how are you supposed to
    know what the right thing is to have faith in?--Oh, you just happen to have faith in the right
    thing. But how do you know? Oh, you just have
    faith.---I think some people claim that you can
    find out by reason what to have faith in; but
    what kind of sense does that make? If you ar-
    rive by reason at something to have faith in
    thereafter, then you can just abandon reason at
    that point? Etc., etc. Zenphamy was right about
    conservatives and their dilemma.--The solution
    is to promote Objectivism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
      I think that you can arrive rationally, as a rational ANIMAL, to having faith in the fundamental goodness of life.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        The fundamental 'goodness' of my life, or of all life? Where do you place the great murderers, the destroyers, the looters and moochers?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
          To me, "life" encompasses all living things, an all encompassing phenomenon of life. Notice that I said that it has a fundamental goodness. The variations from an individual to another individual living organisms are quite wide. Among the humans, the most complex living things we know, the variations from one extreme to the other is the widest. That makes sense to me. I am not willing to accept that all humans are criminals.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            I would never state that 'all humans are criminals'. I do think however that life is neither good or bad, right or wrong--life just is, and has nothing within it or as a part of it, except for the abstractions of humanity, to measure, want to measure, or need to measure such things.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
              Then you must explain what "good" means to you. To you individually and generally or morally.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                You're the one that brought 'goodness' into the conversation. What I'm saying is that life does not have that or any other characteristic. It simply is, just as existence=existence.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
                  What is good, in the most general meaning of the word? In your opinion?

                  Please note, life is not a static existence.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                    Chocolate, freshly baked still warm bread, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, it's just too big a topic. If you're looking for something in life, it all depends on what you make of it. Be free, be connected to the reality around me, accomplish the things I want to, maintain integrity, learn more, driving a fast well handling car, fly fishing. It's just not possible except within the a defined context.

                    What's yours?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
        The purpose of life, biologically, is to procreate. Once incapable of that function or contributing to the larder natures solution is death. All life forms deveop and evolve according t need. Trading instinct for reason a major event in the timelinei of life. The use of reason is still trying...

        Islam like Hillary and Soros are the result of repeatedly following dead end. For one their motive is false.Their conclusions do not serve to perpetuate and evolve the species. But then the same may be said for Republicans and Democrats.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
          It is exactly the opposite: the purpose of procreation is to sustain life.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
            Yes that is exactly what I said. I'm at a loss to explain the use of ''opposite.''
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
              Just look a couple of inches above here. You wrote: "The purpose of life, biologically, is to procreate."

              In my humble understanding of English, purpose denotes a relationship where some thing or some action has as its goal or is aimed at achieving something further or more desirable.

              The "purpose of procreation" cannot possibly be the same thing as "purpose of life".

              If you do not understand that without much cogitating, your cognitive faculties are so low that I do not wish to waste my time explaining and teaching you. Or, which I think is more likely, you are playing games with me. That makes it too obnoxious and insulting for me. In either case, I had enough. If you and your likes continue to infest the atmosphere here, I am leaving.

              Goodbye!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
                Still exactly what I said so why are you ...never mind...some people end up in those dead end corridor. i call it the woosh factor as in ...wow that went right over my head!!! Enjoy your stayi.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
      So, you're unable to discern between the value of Judeo-Christian principles that are the bedrock of western civilization (and America's founding) and radical Islam?

      This ideal scenario of the gulch is only possible when tethered to a moral compass. I challenge you, or anyone in the gulch, to provide examples of a culture devoid the Judeo-Christian moral compass that resulted in greater freedom, liberty, property rights, and ability to prosper on one's own merits than existed in the last half of the 19th century America.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
        Your statement is so absurd, so divergent from reality it is hard to know how to respond. Simply stated the US was not founded on Christianity or its morals, if it were the US would have been a 3rd world country.

        db
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 3 months ago
        Your challenge is irrelevant to the discussion. An answer to it proves nothing in response to the invalid use of faith as a reasonable defense of freedom.

        No one is saying there are not differences between Judeo-Christian and radical Islam. What is being asserted is that both 'defend' their beliefs with faith. So once the rhetoric ceases, it eventually becomes a contest of which faith blinks and which faith is better armed among the holders of the 'real truth'.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
          My challenge IS the discussion. If you're unable to demonstrate a single society that has flourished under your premise, it calls into question your premise.

          Further, the difference between societies founded on Judeo-Christian principles versus Islamic is also demonstrable. We don't need to theorize about this, there are living examples today.

          There seems to be a preternatural aversion to recognizing the facts on the ground.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
    I see this view as misguided. While Islam is a religion, it is also a political movement, one that expressly refuses to be part of any multicultural society, and its danger to us comes from that refusal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      I personally don't know many Christians that also think their religious views and beliefs shouldn't be tied to their politics and the ruling of the country. Look at all the 'Blue Laws' still on the books throughout the country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
        This varies from one Christian to the next, but it certainly became much less of a problem around the time of the French Revolution, when both most Christian churches and civil authorities stopped engaging in witch hunts and heresy trials. (Though Britain kept its law against witchcraft until 1964, and still has a blasphemy law.)

        I agree with you that the law needs to purge itself of the rest of that influence. But Islam does it much worse, and even "moderate" Muslims in the West will protect the perpetrators of "honor killings", FGM, and other crimes such as the Rotherham rape scandal. Which in my view is sufficient probable cause to profile Muslims up to a point.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
    The problem with Islam is that it's stuck in a societal time warp. Militant Catholicism of the Fourteenth Century, with its warrior popes seeking world domination by the church are the closest Western equivalent to today's Islam. Even Egypt's President observes that Islam needs a Reformation to become more tolerant of other religions and peoples. The correct observation is that Islam is not a modern religion, but it is one that insists on theocracy, replacing a secular government and enforcing the dominance of Islam over any other faith.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      There are approx. 1 billion humans expressing that faith, most in developing and advanced societies. Although I think they're as wrong as the militants/terrorists, they are the majority of the faith. Any belief system, without empirical evidence that proposes that it is the 'right' belief system, compared to any other belief system is as wrong or as right as any belief system based on 'faith'. How can it be otherwise?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
        A belief system that espouses violence as a means of conversion is wrong, regardless if it's based on ideology or religious beliefs. Socialism is a non-violent ideology, while Communism is a violent one. A socialist doesn't care if you support the system, while a Communist says you must. A Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist may care about the form of your spiritual belief, but he isn't going to demand you convert or die. Roughly 10% of the Ummah (Muslim faithful) believe in conversion by force, and another 30% think that violent conversion is one acceptable way to bring people to Allah. I don't care how many believe that way, it isn't any less wrong, whether only a hundred believe, or 100 million.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
          Have you forgotten how large parts of productive sector have socialist expropriated? Look at dictionary definitions. Socialism purports that all means of production should be owned by the society. That is how their name came up. Because the humanity slowly is beginning to understand that such an ideology is misguided, they use misleading names for concepts and hide their ultimate goal. In short, they are dishonest.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
            Just because a socialist doesn't care if you support his views doesn't imply honesty. Socialists have always been con artists, but generally deceiving people is easier than forcing them to accept socialist tenets. Before you point to the National Socialists of Germany (Nazis) as a violent form of socialism, I would say that there is a line of control that socialists run into, where resistance from powerful private interests forces the socialists to choose how to proceed: a partnership with the powerful private interests, which is Fascism, the route the Nazis took; a transition into Communism, "dethroning" the wealthy individuals, expropriating their wealth by force; or accepting the limits of their control, depending on improving the con to gain support for further state encroachment into the private realm.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years, 3 months ago
    It is not "religion" as such, it is "belief."

    A "belief" is not truth; if it were truth, it would be demonstrable. A "belief" is not fact; if it was fact, it would be demonstrable.

    AR said "Never use emotion as a tool of cognizance." Believers "choose" their belief because of the return on the investment. Whether Islam or Christianity or Buddhism, et al., the choice is personal. When it involves government, it is no longer personal, it is political.

    AR said "Never initiate force (or fraud)." When a "belief" excuses the initiation of force, whether it is called a "religion" or not, it is destructive of individuals and flies in the face of rational thought, flies in the face of being objective.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Good quote. I like Bertrand Russell's cosmic tea pot: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
        How about this,
        All christians are altruists
        Altruism is evil
        All Christians are evil
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 3 months ago
          Well, I would differentiate that altruism, when purely voluntary, is not an evil perpetrated on others. It is then usually called private charity.

          The evil that is addressed in John Galts' pledge is identified when force is involved by one or a group inflicted on another in the name of either altruism or pure aggression. That is not charity by definition.

          When true charity is engaged in - i.e. without coercion involved, the exchange of value is perceived by the charitable individual to be the immediate and eventual return of good will. Between cognizant individuals this kind of interaction is beneficial.

          As to the basis of altruism preached as a fundamental good by religion through some evocation of guilt without differentiating the choice of individuals - hoo, boy, you've got a Pandora's Box, there, which I think is what you are getting at.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
            Rember altruism is a moral command in christianity which says that individuals should sacrifice themselves to others and politically it is implemented by coercion forcing one group to sacrifice themselves to other groups. That is what we are observing in the world today and the basis of Galt's speech against altruism. As Martha Nussbaum would say "The only moral government is one that sacrifices one group to another for the greater good." Charity is a personal choice not a moral necessity in a rational society.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 3 months ago
              Indeed. When religions (any of them) go the collective route and require sacrifice to others, much mischief is achieved in the world.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
                But all religions do it because to be a religion is to presume that the individual cannot achieve a good life on their own. This is why original sin is a perfect mind control game. The only way out is subordination in piety and being to the priest and lord who alone held grace and redemption. . Remember in the Inquisition the body was unimportant the Inquisitors job was to save the soul. Burning the body was nothing. Ovens by Christian Germans was nothing to purify the german soul, the gulag was nothing to eliminate the oppressor classes, the killing fields were incidental to educating the serfs, the labor camps and spies of Cuba are nothing to the purity of the revolution. The American revolution was so unique in that it was intended to allow each individual to find their own way in the world, free, challenged and rewarded according to their effort in kind and honor. The body and mind are one, chain the body you chain the mind. Fight to free the body and you free the mind. The horror is religion which asks you to chain your mind yourself to another.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Flootus5 9 years, 3 months ago
                  Well said. You remind me of myself about 45 years ago.

                  Back then in High School art class, I remember doing one of those diminishing perspective drawings with a dividing wall down the middle.

                  On the left (interestingly) side was a depicted world of horror with hordes of people bowing to religious icons, stukas dive bombing people, poverty, starving emaciated people, dark clouds, vile lakes......and then on the right side of the wall was a clean, clear society of reason with surveyors with transits, engineers with blue prints, advanced Howard Roark style buildings, blue skies, rays of sunshine, books, railroads, town meetings of free people.

                  I remember the art teacher just kind of mumbling that it evoked some "powerful imagery".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          Yes, I can agree to that, but not because of corollaries or coincidences. If you support and defend a belief system that leads to evil, whether you participate in that evil or not--you are evil.

          As is a cop that stands by and watches his fellow cops abuse, rob, or murder others even though he himself doesn't do those things.

          Or the husband of Mrs. X is a pedophile and abuses your and his children.
          Pedophilia and child abuse is evil
          Mr. and Mrs. X are evil.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      But isn't religion based on belief that faith in the supernatural, will or already has provided all the answers?

      I'm currently reading a book, 'Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks' by Hilton Radcliffe that addresses the difficulties in today's science that have resulted from 'belief systems' in the performance of science, and how extremely difficult it is for any human to recognize his own beliefs and separate them from his interpretation and/or application of facts. I highly recommend Radcliffe's writing to any Objectivist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
    The role of religion in our society was made clearer by my encounters with two people in the course of my life:

    Example #1: A mature gentleman, affable and helpful, became one of my friends. He and I were playing Risk (I do not normally game, but he talked me into it) and he betrayed an alliance. I was upset at this. He told me something that, he said, only his wife otherwise knew: He was a psychopath. He had chosen to handle this condition by carefully selecting his (a) wife, (b) subculture and (c) job to be ones that provided him with behavioral definitions that he consciously approved of.

    Example #2. A young man who was a Mormon related to me that he had ceased being a Mormon during his HS years, but had returned to the faith of his childhood when he realized that he did not like the way his life was going. He did not feel he could live a life he liked without extrinsic guidelines.

    Religion is a tool. This may be difficult for many of us on this list to realize because we are a list of 'black sheep' (and one dinosaur). We have all been people who kicked over our cultural 'traces' and gone off to define our own lives.

    Many of the religions people on this list see god as a 'prime creator' but consider Physics to be the operational rules of the universe; others have picked a reasonable and compassionate path amongst the conflicting advice offered by the bible. Neither of these choices diminishes their ability to make rational decisions in the real world, or alters their ability to be good neighbors.

    We are not the rule in the Gulch, we are the exceptions. Many people seem to need the existence of extrinsic rules that tell them 'how' to live a life of the sort they like, 'when' they have done something wrong, and 'what' to do about it when then have erred. Established religions have responded by evolving their own philosophies to fill these needs - and the ones who did not (such as militant versions of Catholicism) have fallen by the wayside. Religions compete for proponents by addressing these concerns.

    Islam. Islam is stuck in a terrible and violent loop, and has taken extreme steps to not allow competition by other religions. How many people would remain Islamic if they had the ability to convert and be Episcopalian? How many would adhere to a radical form of Islam if a 10th century version of Islam were available to them instead?

    I think that the question of religions has a lot to do with the biblical injunction to judge a tree by the fruit it bears.

    Jan, an agnostic quoting scripture
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      But all of those extrinsic guidelines, rules, and controls are anti-individual, whatever their source. They are all Thou shalls and Thou shall nots, not self formed I wills or I will nots. They are all authority/compliance based 'handing over rule' of you to someone/something other than your own reason. Invariably, in such a situation, the value of your individual life will be measured against someone or something else and probably come up short. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's", etc. Where is your life, your property, your betterment of life at in any of that? It's not there. It's either determined by who makes the rules or who interprets what some god says the rules are.

      It's slavery, if not of your body, your mind. It's anti-life.

      And in the context of the post it's My boss/god's bigger than yours

      Yes he is.--No, he's not.--Is so--Is not--The fight's on.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
        The various Christian sects have managed not to get in a 'god-wagging' contest for the last couple of hundred years, so war is not inevitable amongst a mixture of religions, so long as it is denied governmental power. In context of this post, I would say that the problems we are having with Islam is different from a discussion of religion per se. It is the current permutation of Islam (love these new formatting options) that is itself the problem we have to solve.

        I think that the majority of the human race, given ample philosophical education and free choice, would choose a socialist society for themselves: they would be willing to surrender their right of self-determination in exchange for security. And I think that these people should have the right to that choice.

        The matrix in which those socialist communes must nest is a capitalistic one, though: we can see through history that a socialist society cannot tolerate free will and self-determination within it; a capitalist society can and has tolerated socialist enclaves within its boundaries.

        Similarly, most people will currently choose some extrinsic religion that assures them that they are doing right. It is important that the matrix in which these religions exist makes clear the right of the individual to change religions or to abjure them entirely. The fact that you ask the question, "Where is your life, your property, your betterment of life at in any of that?" just means that you are someone who would not make that choice. Others, most others, I think, would choose differently.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
          The truth that you are ignoring is that once they "poison" the matrix which feeds, the socialist societies die.

          The trouble is that almost nobody gets "ample philosophical education" and only some the free choice. On top of that vast majorities think that someone else is responsible for "achieving" happiness for them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
            I think you misunderstood my comments, Martimus:

            Capitalist societies have no problems co-existing with communes and religious orders, which are socialist societies, as long as it is the Capitalist society that owns the uber rules. Many such individual-choice socialist subsets have existed within the US for all of its existence. (The reverse is not true - Socialist societies do have trouble with Capitalist enclaves because they are destabilized by them.)

            My reference to "ample philosophical education" was to indicate that I think that the pro-socialism choice is going to be innate in a large subset of the human population; that it was not a matter of their having been conditioned by our current educational system to believe in socialism. I think that there are genuinely that many people who lack any inclination to excel and who are sufficiently risk-adverse that they would be glad to trade their personal freedom for security.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    Throughout history, men seeking wealth and power have used religion as an excuse to commit the most heinous acts. In order to quell the extremes of religious fervor, moral codes were written into the various holy books. Because of these codes and other factors, people defend religions as being good regardless of how horrible their history. The only reason for the success of religion(s) is that it proclaims a final authority i:e: God. This allows men to give up the effort required of rational thought and lays it out to the "ultimate" arbiter.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 3 months ago
    While Islam does have a governance component to it, Zenphamy is correct. It is fundamentally a theistic religion with virtually everything in common with Christianity and Judaism up to the point of Abram (later renamed Abraham). Interestingly, the Muslim telling of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac has Ishmael, Abraham's son through his concubine, as the one who was nearly sacrificed. It would be far easier to intellectually shred Islam using Ayn Rand's philosophy as a basis than it would be for Christians or Jews to do so, for the Christians or Jews would have to deny some of their foundational texts in order to do so.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
      I disagree. They wholly differ on purpose and means of achieving purpose. Christianity holds that force is not acceptable in promoting religion while Islam does. Christianity's notion of God and His purpose is vastly different from Islam's. Yes, they claim to share a common heritage in Abraham, but after that the philosophical ideas depart radically. Of particular note is the concept of a savior: Islam eschews the concept entirely while Jews claim He hasn't come and Christians claim He has. That single point of doctrine is key and critical to the separation of the three ideologies because every other concept, ceremony, doctrine, or practice stems from that point. To argue that they are all the same because they all believe in a God is to misidentify the base characteristics of the God each chooses to worship. It is akin to saying that all of the gods of the Hindu pantheon are the same despite one having the head of an elephant and one having the head of a monkey.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 3 months ago
    I don't mean to be the bad seed, but what is the point of the article? That the West become atheist in order to fight Islam better?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      For myself the impact is that all of us understand that our belief systems are a part of the makeup of our persons, atheist, Christian, Muslim, or non-believers--each and every one of us. That those belief systems are based on faith as a source of knowledge, which it is not in reality. That we understand that if we allow those belief systems to over-rule our reasoning and rational minds, that we then react in irrational ways.

      Applying reason and logic to the problem of Islam might well lead us to different conclusions than if we only react in defense of our individual or group beliefs rather than to demonstrable facts. I'm not a pacifist and I'm not asking for peace nor am I asking for a Holy war against Islam (that's been tried a couple of times before and it's what Islam itself wants).

      Get the rhetoric, the political speak, the religious speak, the propaganda speak, the I'm better than you speak out of our internal conversation with ourselves and the public and look for real solutions. What we've been doing since the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan sure as Hell hasn't done anything but make everything worse including our own individual lives in our reactive surveillance-give up our rights state.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
    This issue of Christianity and religion generally has been a popular topic at the gulch of late.

    The trend seems to be to scoff at Christianity in favor of Rand's ideology. I find it remarkable that the gulch doesn't realize that Judeo-Christian principles are essential to freedom/liberty. It's divinely ironic that Rand, after escaping communist Russia failed to grasp this.

    Further, the argument that reason/science precludes faith and because we can't prove the existence of God or his work proves his non-existence. Can someone with this position, please prove that love exists?

    Just because one can physically touch, or scinetificly prove, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's the cynosure of arrogance to assume that we know all that's possible to know or understand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Rand didn't put forth an 'ideology'/belief. She put forth a philosophy that's not interested in proving that God doesn't exist, it's interested in showing a way of learning, reasoning, and recognition of the reality that actually effects each of us in our lives and rejects the entire idea of reacting based on 'ideology'/belief/instinct/emotion. The further each man can move himself away from his instinctual belief system reactions and toward rational reasoning, he moves closer to the ideal of the individual man with individual rights working for himself.

      As far as I'm concerned, we can never know all that's possible to know, but our purpose is to continue to learn and understand a little more of the reality we live in.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      There is no "trend" to "scoff" at religion in favor of "Rand's ideology". The purpose of this forum is to support and discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, which is fundamentally incompatible with any kind of faith in the supernatural. That is not a "scoff trend", it is the purpose. Bible thumping with faith in sacred text is irrelevant to human knowledge and does not belong here.

      Reason is essential to a free society and a free society cannot be defended without a philosophy of reason. Judeo-Christian dogma is incompatible with that, was not the source of the founding of this country, and cannot be used to defend it.

      Reason and science preclude faith because fantasy is not method of cognition. Rejecting faith in the supernatural and its claims don't need to be disproved. This has nothing to do with the strawman claim of already knowing all that's possible to understand. Obviously, science is a process of expanding knowledge -- including knowledge of the atomic structure of matter, electromagnetic fields, and much more we can't reach out and "touch".

      The church and its mentality of mysticism grovelling before the supernatural has a long history of rejecting science as human "arrogance". The Enlightenment overthrew the intellectual dominance of that nihilism, and resulted in the founding of America and an increase in human well-being in only a few centuries that had been undreamed of for millennia.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
        You kind of making my point for me when you begin with "no trend to scoff at religion" and then go on to denigrate it.

        Rand was a great intellect, but here philosophy wasn't perfect. The fundamental flaw was her rejection of Judeo-Christian morality as the keystone to the freedom and liberty of western civilization. To not recognize this fact is to fundamentally misunderstand what makes the freedom cherished by this group possible.

        The truly great minds of science (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, etc.) would profoundly disagree with your assessment the relationship between science, reason, and religion.

        You also confuse "the church" with religion and faith. The Enlightenment was about throwing religion, it was about throwing off the tyranny of the church.

        And, your assertion about the founding of America is also at odds with historical record. The Founding Fathers were profoundly religious and recognized that freedom and liberty (our natural rights) were endowed to us by "our Creator". You may want to go back and review the Declaration of Independence and personal writings of the Founding Fathers.

        Science and reason are mission critical, but we should never be so arrogant as to presume that out inability to understand/prove the existence of something negates its existence.

        There is simply no way to honestly judge history without recognizing that Judeo-Christian principles are what makes freedom and liberty possible.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          Judeo-Christian morality, teachings, and instructions from Jesus were to 'turn the other cheek' and 'Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's...'. Had that been the profound belief of the Founders, this country would have a Queen right now, if it existed at all. The only reference in the founding documents was to 'Our Creator' which can as easily be understood as nature, as anything else. Christian's continued attempts to claim ownership of such words and usages in order to substantiate their beliefs is nonsense.

          We continue to demonstrate the point of this post in these conversations of the relative rightness of Christian religion, rather than understanding that allowing belief and faith to guide or direct us through life and determine our actions and reactions to other human life because they don't believe the same thing we do is the problem.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
            I highly recommend you re-read the Declaration of Independence, particularly the part that reads "that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" as an education resource for the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

            Once you've read that, you would do well to read their personal writings and note that over half of the signers of the DOI were ministers/theologians themselves. To assert that the Founding Fathers didn't found America on Judeo-Christian principles categorically false.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              So Newton was also a minister/theologian. Am I supposed to interpret it that judeo-christian principles inspired his invention of Calculus and defining the principles of force, movement, momentum, and gravity as well? That was the way that many, many people obtained education near and during that time. Universities were run and operated by the various sects, mainly the Catholics up until the Founding when land grant universities were started by states. Further, to be in public life at all, you had to appear and sound as if you were religious--remember even when Kennedy was running, the arguments about his catholicism. All the news ops put forth of Obama going to church. Do you seriously think that he's at all religious?

              I've heard and read all of these arguments for 60+ years. It's like trying to define Franklyn as a Quaker. He was raised and lived in that society, but there was little of his life style that would have made his Quaker elders happy with him. Hancock and Adams were smugglers. Jefferson and Madison were Deists. It just doesn't follow that they were 'profoundly religious'. Those men were far too complex as individuals and a group to be defined by one small aspect of their characters and public lives.

              I realize none of these arguments will make any difference to you, but you'll note that at that time, there was no other country on this continent or all of Europe that separated religion and government as those Founders did. I think that speaks volumes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                Again, for what I presume to be a well educated person, you're demonstrating a remarkable lack of historical knowledge.

                The Founding Father were profoundly religious, and not for appearance sake. You really should take time to study them more and read their personal writings, in addition to the DOI.

                Further, the Founders did not separate religion/church from the public square. Again, you're demonstrating lack of historical knowledge. The separation clause was specific to Congress supporting a church at the federal level. At the time of the signing, all the colonies had a church supported by the individual colonies. The Founders wanted states and citizens to have freedom to establish their own church and vote their feet. Church services were actually held in the US Capitol during Jefferson's term in office.

                With regard to Jefferson/Madison being deists, that in no way diminishes their deeply held religious beliefs. It simply means they didn't believe God inserted interfered with the daily life of man. They believed we were created by God, and that our natural rights were derived from Him. As it relates to the question of Islam, they (Jefferson/Madison) firmly believed that muslim theocracies were incompatible with freedom/liberty and would pose a threat to the west. Always found it interesting that the Marine hymn references Jefferson sending Marines to Tripoli.

                I'm happy to continue to the debate, but we must be clear on the historical record.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                  Jeeezuz Kryst on a popsickle stick. "The Founders wanted states and citizens to have freedom to establish their own church and vote their feet."

                  It never ceases to amaze me, that belief can so distort reality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                    You're clearly not a student of American history. All 13 colonies had state funded churches. The 1st Amendment was written to preclude Congress from creating a federally-funded church.

                    If you're going to have an honest, intellectual debate on this subject, you need to know your history.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                      They were a British colony at the point of the Revolution and Britain set up the colonies under British rules and customs, but to try to translate that custom at that time into the intent of the Founders is pure sophism, and ignores the plain language of the Constitution.

                      The intent of the Founders was to keep religion out of the government and the business of interfering with the individual rights of citizens. They fully intended to place religious beliefs and activities in the hands of the individual and the practice of religion at the level of the individual as a matter of individual choice and reason, and to eliminate all coercive influences and powers of the European practice and history. They abhorred those practices and history and intended to provide a country based on reason and individual freedom of the mind.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                        You're correct that their intent was to NOT have a federal "church", which is why the First Amendment language said, "Congress shall make no...". They had no issue with individual states having a religion. As we know from historical record, most of the 13 colonies had state funded religions.

                        They had absolutely no designs on removing religion from the public square in any way, shape, or form, as they knew the very survival of freedom and liberty depended on Judeo-Christian principles... that our natural rights are endowed to us by our Creator.

                        Of course they did want a theocracy, and you're correct in stating the Founding Fathers wanted the individual to decide how he/she would worship. That's why they left it to the states, which allowed people to "vote with their feet" (if you didn't want to live in a Anglican dominated state, you could move to a state where the Congregational Church was dominant). But to assert that the founding principles of America were not based on their religious beliefs is simply factually inaccurate.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 9 years, 3 months ago
                          The history of colonies is full of free religion (or no religion) legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...

                          Christianity is the anti-thesis of the Declaration of Independence - particularly "the pursuit of happiness (your own)

                          db
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                            Hogwash. Mandating a religion as a qualification to hold government office or allowing the state to dictate a specific religion on a a people, that was the Framers original intent.

                            "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
                            John Adams, First Vice President, Second President of the United States
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 3 months ago
                              You are ignoring the overwhelming counter factuals.

                              for example:

                              As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
                              -- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                                Interesting in relation to the content of the post article--understanding the Islam issue. Since at that time of Adams' letter, Islam had been a well established religion for about a thousand years, yet Adams found the judeo-christian religion to be the 'most bloody' that ever existed.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                                Good quote. I never read that one before. Thanks.

                                Even so, his quote doesn't change the sentiment expressed in the quote I used - the need for a religious and moral people for the Constitution to remain relevant, nor the fact that the judeo-Christian ideology was used as a standard, one of many, to base the Constitution on.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                              The Gulch has lost its ability to rationally discuss a topic.

                              Someone takes my point for stating factual information related to the Framers intent AND providing a direct quote attributed to John Adams to support my statement?

                              Weak. Sadly, Expected.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                                I imagine it has something to do with your selective pick of quotes rather than understanding the contradictions of men like Adams.

                                Other than that I don't get your complaint. I'm an advocate of more active voting, both negative and positive. I personally think the Gulch does an excellent job of rational discussion, just not one well suited to ideologues and religionist.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                                  On most topic I agree. I generally steer away from this topic because it tends to bring out the negatives in some people here. Oddly enough, as I've said other times, my wife wishes I were more dedicated to my Christianity and the Objectivists here think I could be more dedicated to my objectivity. The only person I need to please in this lifetime is myself. I'm a constitutional conservative American - I'm precariously balanced exactly where I should be.

                                  As for my quotes, every man is a contradiction. The Framers, great men because their sheer audacity, are naturally contradictory in their statements. How else could they have built a nation such as this where all beliefs are to be tolerated and none have precedence or priority over any another?

                                  About the point - I generally do not get nasty. I try to explain making my points. I very rarely back-down on a subject I feel strongly about. I can admit that I am wrong when I feel I am. Very seldom do I take a point from anyone unless they are getting rude, crude, or disrespectful.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Zenphamy replied 9 years, 3 months ago
                        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                          I suppose one could argue that since their religious beliefs and their political beliefs were that government-public life and religion had no business mixing that the founding principles of the Founders did influence them to found a country without religious belief having anything to do with the public sphere, though the religious have never ceased their fight to try to insert as much as they could, like blue laws and prohibition, much to the detriment of the rest of us.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                            You cannot separate the filter of a persons beliefs in his/her decision making. Yes, objectivity can be used by a faith-oriented mind but the governing ideology of the individual is always present as a moral compass, if nothing else.The Founders, as the majority of the people who came to the New World, were largely Christian - one flavor or another. What they created with their beliefs was an environment that respected, not only their own beliefs, but everyones in equal measure. Initially some townships tried to mandate a specific religion for their public offices and that is why the statement was made, to prevent the state establishing a religion.

                            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/new...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                              But I disagree, in that a strong and practiced Objectivist can often and in most cases, separate his beliefs from his decision making and in all cases subject his own beliefs, when discovered to evaluation against reality and evidence.

                              I think those that don't conduct themselves in that manner, and instead attempt to justify and rationalize their belief based judgements and life event reactions, will inevitably harm themselves or others in some anti-life manner.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                                Christians can't? If not, how did this nation come to be?

                                Objectivist use their objectivity to make decisions, no? That would be their belief and their morality, no?
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
          The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement emphasizing reason and individualism directly contradicting the previous dominant religious ideas of the church. Political freedom to various degrees in different places was a consequence of the profound change in intellectual outlook. See Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels and any reputable history of philosophy to compare the religious dogma of the church with the development of philosophical ideas at the time. See also Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

          The early successes in the science of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were in spite of religion, not because of it. They did not use religious faith as a substitute for validation through observation and reason. Einstein was not religious at all. No one said that an inability to understand or prove the existence of something negates its existence. You made that up. If you mean your faith in the supernatural, that is meaningless and arbitrary with no referents in reality to discuss and nothing to understand. It has nothing to do with science, evidence or proof. There is no reason to take fantasy seriously as at all. That is why it is properly rejected as anything to take cognitively seriously, let something to either believe or believe to be "possible".

          Your militant repetition alleging a "dishonesty" in rejecting your religion as the foundation of this country while ignoring what had just been explained to you and has been discussed at length is non-responsive and rude. The founders of this country were not "profoundly religious" and religion was not what the Declaration of Independence was about. If Christian other worldly asceticism and duty to the supernatural had continued to dominate we would never have risen out of the Dark and Middle Ages, let alone achieved America. The country was founded despite the remnants of religion, not because of it.

          Ayn Rand had no "fundamental flaw" in rejecting "Judeo-Christian morality" as the "keystone to the freedom and liberty of western civilization" or anything else. Christian morality is based on other worldly duty to sacrifice, which is the diametric opposite of the right to one's own life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own happiness on earth. Rational egoism is a central and fundamental aspect of her philosophy. See her book The Virtue of Selfishness and, again, Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for explanation to get started, assuming you are interested in learning.

          The reasons for rejecting your religious proselytizing here have been given many times. It directly and fundamentally opposes Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, which is the purpose of this forum, and the nuisance distraction does not belong here. Reason and faith are opposites and incompatible. If you think that is nothing other than "scoffing" then it is your problem in not following the discussion or taking an interest in the purpose of the forum. This is not a place to evangelize for religion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
            You seem to have a fundamental misunderstand my position, as well as that of the Founding Fathers, the great scientific thinkers referenced above, and the Enlightenment.

            The scientific thinkers referenced above were devoutly religious (that's entirely different from "the church") and viewed science as a means of gaining greater understanding of their Creator for myriad reasons I've pointed out.

            To assert that the Founding Fathers were not deeply religious is to have a profound lack of historical knowledge. More than half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ministers and/or had degrees in theology themselves. There is no question whatsoever that western civilization (and America) were founded on Judeo-Christian principles. To deny this is to maintain a preternatural rejection of historical facts. Were the references to the Creator in the DOI and personal writings of the Founding Fathers typographical errors?

            This forum is a for honest intellectual debate, which is what I'm attempting to have. I'm not evangelizing my religion. Rand was, without doubt, a great intellect, but she was not infallible.

            You consistently avoid "the watch" question and "the building question", because it spotlights the fact that creation requires a Creator by Rand's own assertion. She admired the architect who designed something as simple as a building, while denying the most complex system in the universe must have a Creator.

            One can believe in property rights, freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and be either an atheist or a Christian. The difference is that it's Judeo-Christian principles that allow for both to exist. Look to where Judeo-Christian principles are not observed, and you will find less freedom, less liberty, and less property rights.




            Their
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 3 months ago
              One can believe in property rights, freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and be either an atheist or a Christian."

              Nope - these are totally inconsistent with Christianity.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
              Please show how the fact that humans create things, to satisfy their needs for survival and to derive pleasure, demonstrates that the universe must have had a creator, presumably an intelligent, rational, free will wielding one, pretty much a copy of Howard Roark.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                So, you believe that the absolute precision of the universe and the infinite complexity of humans happened by accident? Things as basic as pencils, wheels, and nuclear power plants require a designers but the infinitely more complex human does not?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
        Further, you again make my point for me with the assertion about expanding knowledge. Viewing a nuclear bomb 500 years ago would have seemed to witnesses to be supernatural. Just because we don't understand it now, does not mean it's mystic.

        To believe there's no Creator, we must believe (as what pointed out by another Gulcher last week) that it's possible to place all the pieces of a watch in a bag along with a lit stick of dynamite. After the explosion, the result will be a perfectly tuned precision watch. Creation requires a creator.

        Oh, and you completely avoided the point about proving the existence of love. Lack of proof or ability to scientifically demonstrate doesn't negate existence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
          One can see anything that is not yet understood without attributing it to a supernatural cause. Your claim that science knows all that is possible to understand is false. Your denouncing science as arrogant is your problem.

          There is no such things as "creation" out of non-existence and change in the form of existence does not require a conscious intent by some being, supernatural or otherwise. It has nothing to do with imagined watches manufactured by blowing something up. Specific means are required in the formation of anything. It is not random.

          Your meandering off on demanding a proof of "love" is irrelevant. Everyone has experienced love and knows that it exists from direct observation. That is not faith in the supernatural. You have tried that line before. It didn't work then and it doesn't now.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
            No, not everyone has experienced love and not everyone believes in love, which is my point. Those of us that have experienced, know it exists without being able to empirically prove it... that's the point.

            I'm not sure where you observed me saying science knows all. I said exactly the opposite.

            And, you seemed to have missed my point entirely with the watch. According to you/Rand, we're expected to believe that something as basic as a pencil requires a creator (never mind a watch), but the most complex set of systems in the universe happened by accident as result of an explosion.

            Ironically, this position also flies in the face of Rand's ideology. She holds as the highest expression the creation of a skyscraper or new technology or ..., yet denies that we had a Creator. By that logic, the Empire State Building would have spontaneously happened given enough time, as the raw materials were just waiting for the right set of random circumstances.

            See, the logic falls apart. Interestingly, Christianity allows for and explains how we came to be here and our endowed rights (natural rights) enable freedom, liberty, and the right to create, while Rand's ideology actually contradicts itself in this regard by not explaining how we came to be.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              The logic you try to describe as falling apart, only happens because you include fallacies. You continue to try to describe Rand's 'philosophy' as an 'ideology'. It is not.

              Rand nor anyone else claims that biology or the cosmos happened by accident. The 'Big Bang' theory was the creation of a Catholic priest, and has to be continually 'adjusted' to match direct observations and measurements. Your continued reliance on the theory only demonstrates that scientist can also suffer from the influence of their belief systems, to the detriment of their work.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                If there is no Creator, the alternative is an accident/randomness, there's no other option.

                What atheists want the rest of us to believe is that the universe, which operates with absolute mathematical precision, and man, the most complex mechanism in the universe, are the result of randomness. But, a pencil must have an inventor/creator.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                  No. You're proposing a false set of limits. There is cause/effect even if we haven't been able to identify that cause as of yet. Gravity exists and if you step off of your roof, you'll fall at the same rate every time you try it. We can measure and predict the effect so precisely that we can send satellites and probes immense distances over years long travels and arrive precisely where we wanted them to go. Yet no one can tell you what or how gravity has the effect it has. But that is no excuse to claim that God did it.

                  We're the result of evolutionary processes that have taken millions, maybe billions of years to work, and has no doubt involved processes and maybe events that we don't have a good answer to yet. It doesn't mean that we can't learn about it without consulting some supernatural explanation. Your pencil couldn't exist without man's mind nor without the effects of life. Still doesn't imply that god had anything to do with it.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          But we do understand nuclear bombs today--we build them. By the discussion of possibility, you ignore probability.

          As to the existence of love, every human at one time or the other experiences the subjective experience of love and the effects of it on a human is directly observable and measurable--the physical and mental effects are well quantified and studied.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
            Yes, we do understand the bomb today, which is my point. What would once have been thought supernatural was simply beyond our means of comprehension at the time. Understanding our Creator may be beyond our comprehension now or in this life. That does not make it supernatural hogwash.

            Regarding love, yes most people have experienced love (but not all), but it's impossible to quantify or prove empirically. Brain activity when thinking about love/loved ones can be replicated by many other things, so it's a matter of belief and/faith. We can't prove love, but we know it exists.

            Likewise, billions of people have experienced God without the ability to prove it. The lack of proof does not equal non-existence.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              I'm not arguing about the lack of proof. I'm arguing for the application of our minds with rationality and logical reasoning.
              At some point, you and i'll stop this conversation, yet our conflict with radical Islam will continue and many religious conservatives will continue to argue that it's because they just don't understand the judeo-christian belief system and ethical framework, and they'll continue to argue that as their god revealed to them, that they're doing what their god wants.

              And people on both sides will continue to die and our government will continue to use that as an excuse to take away more of our rights and freedom. Those are facts, that is reality. That situation will never be resolved by 'my religious beliefs are right' and 'your's are wrong' arguments.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                I agree with your assessment completely that we're at war with radical islam. That conflict is the product of the tenants of radical islam, and has nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity beyond the fact that they (radical islam) hate us.

                The freest Muslims in the Middle East live in Israel. If radical islam puts down its weapons, we would have peace. If we put down ours, we would be dead.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 3 months ago
    Interesting. Kinda like calling the gun evil.

    Religion is not the problem. Religion is a tool.

    It is always interesting to me that so many people have the ability to be rational about one tool. Most everyone here is with a gun. Yet totally and completely irrational about another tool religion.

    It is the mind and only the mind that can choose to use a tool for good or evil. The article has it wrong.

    Science is also a tool. Today its being used in our schools to condition children that the country is their god. Does that make Psychology evil? It does not take much imagination to go on and on about the why in which people use science to hold down others and maintain power by the means of push and pull. Does that make science evil.

    Yes people have chosen to use religion as a weapon it does not mean we should do away with god centered religion to replace it with a different religion that has no god and worships something else instead. No more than it means we should abandon psychology because governments are using it to brain wash people into submission without even known they are submitting.

    The dark age was so because the minds of men decided to use the social and technological tools of the time to hold people down in order to maintain power. That can be done by men of religion or men of science. The fact is in most of the free world, its science that is enslaving this time, and its a better tool for the job.

    If you wish to find the root of the evil you see in religion you must look no father than the mind. It it the only thing capable of such evil, and the only thing capable of the good that can counter it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      But could the mind accomplish the evil without the belief system behind it, or available for misuse against others?

      True, a gun is a tool, but it's purpose is to wound or kill. That's all it can be used for or the threat of it's use. A gun is a fact in reality.

      And Psychology is a tool whose only purpose is to control and/or influence the mind and thought of an otherwise healthy brain. Psychology can be demonstrated in reality.

      Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith that rely upon deceit and fraud and story telling to gain control of masses of people by convincing them that their source of knowledge is to believe, There is no reality, just what the story teller puts in, either good things or bad things.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 3 months ago
        To attempt to separate religion from the other items as a tool is irrational.

        This article and yourself give examples of the effects of religion in reality. I would say it has a very strong effect in reality and is therefor very real as the tool that it is. To attempt to view it as something else is denying the power of the mind.

        From my point of view the religion of atheism is based on deceit and fraud. You would say that about my flavor of Christianity. I have no problem with that it is what you have faith in, and you are entitled to it. You can no more prove god does not exist than I can prove that he does.

        I do not have to prove that god does exist, unless I am attempt to convert you, You only need to prove that he does not if you are attempting to convert me.

        Lets not try to convert each other but rather respect that fact that neither of us wishes to use force on others and we wish to earn what we get by the sweat of our own brow and not allow another man to live for our life.

        Attacking Religion is quite honestly nothing but destructive in the same way that attacking a gun is nothing but destructive. Its not the gun that needs to be attacked. Its the person that decides to use that gun to manipulate and control or kill others that needs to be attacked. The same is true of the religious zealots regardless of if they are Muslim, Atheist or Christian. Those that would initiate the use that tool to attack, kill or control by force others are in the wrong, not the tool.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
          Atheism is rejection of a belief in a god. It is not another kind of religion and is not "deceit and fraud". This is forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, which is incompatible with religious faith. If you think a philosophy of reason is to be dismissed as "deceit and fraud" then what are you doing here?

          It is not "irrational" to reject religion as just another "tool" with no consequences. Religion has supernatural content and method based on faith. That is destructive thinking. A civilized society in which the rights of the individual are protected cannot be based on religion and cannot be defended with religious beliefs. The a-philosophical libertarian subjectivism ignoring the consequences of philosophical ideas people hold is profoundly anti-intellectual.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 3 months ago
            Six definitions of religon:

            1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

            Read the first line Athiesm Qualifies.

            2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

            A=A looks like atheism fits perfectly.

            3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

            Certifiably fits here as well.

            4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:

            Nope does not qualify but then neither do nearly all religious poeple.

            5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

            If your advocating there in no god you must have faith in that, as it cannot be proven any more than I can prove there is a god. Fits here as well.

            6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

            Certiantly based of this thread it fits here.

            Atheism is a religion. Its a godless one but so is secularism, budism and many others that are godless.

            You do not see it as irrational I do.

            I do not want a society based on religion. I want a society free to practice the religion of there choice. I want government and state separated. I would agree that a state based on Christianity, Atheism and/or Muslim would be bad. I do not want one group of believes forced on anyone.

            Again the problem is not religion, it is the way in which people use religion. There are crazy atheist that attempt to cram that down on people as well.

            Enforcing any of these religions on a group of people is irrational. I have just as much right to reject the idea of "no god" as you do to reject the idea of god.

            I am not attempting to convert anyone. I am stating that religion is a tool like any other idea or concept.

            I do not think a philosophy of reason should be dismissed as "Deceit and fraud" but you provide a strawman that substitutes a religion in for a part of a philosophy, which is in and of itself deceit and fraud.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Framers, the Founders, and the Revolutionaries are all men I find to be greatly admired. Can you imagine many men in this day and age with as you say, the 'sheer audacity' and also the complexity and wisdom when dealing with their fellows and the citizenry, to enable all that it took to not only manage through their struggles, but to then forge a united front with something as radically new to most citizens as a republic of not just states, but of individuals. The older I get and the more studied I become on not just them, but their times, the more amazed I become.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
    ISLAM is not a Religion.

    ISLAM is a Theocracy. A Theocracy combines both religion AND government. You cannot separate the two in any way since they both exist a a single thing.

    Do not kid yourselves, we are at war with a Government, not just a religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      Of course Islam is a religion. That cannot be rationalized away to avoid the embarrassment. Islam is an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity and came from the same primitive religious tribal mentality common to the whole region by the 7th century. It was heavily influenced by the Judaism and Christianity that dominated and not surprisingly shares the same basic beliefs and primitive mentality of faith, myth, and groveling before a god, with the personality cult of Mohammed as its own prophet. Islam (from Submission to God) and Moslem (from True Believers) are the same religion. It is a religion.

      Theocratic enforcement and conquer are practiced by the obsessively faithful who take their faith in religious duty seriously. Islamic conquer in the 7th century and beyond was not alone in the region and the religiously inspired conquests didn't start with Islam. The Roman Empire had had quite a run of it by then and they continued at each others' throats. Islam has had its own internal bloody feuds between the Sunni and the Shi'i over a family power struggle for who should follow Mohammed as the leader.

      Abandon reason for faith and there is no way to establish truth for the arbitrary fantasies of faith and no way to settle disputes between competing fantasies other than force. That some American neo-Christians claim faith in political freedom is no different than the method of any other faith and is no defense for a civilized society of reason and individualism. Christianity, the primitive philosophy of the Dark Ages, was not and could not have been the basis for the founding of America, which rose out of the Enlightenment emphasis on reason and individualism breaking the intellectual death grip of the church over western thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
        the·oc·ra·cy
        THēˈäkrəsē/
        noun
        noun: theocracy; plural noun: theocracies
        a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.



        religion
        noun re·li·gion \ri-ˈli-jən\
        : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
        : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.


        "Religion is part of Theocracy,"
        "Theocracy is not part of religion."

        Islam has the "Priests i.e. Mullahs who rule and govern in place of their God and Prophet."

        I am not sure you really know what the issue is between Sunni and Shi'ia. But just to help educate you a bit on that history you are in part correct.

        The divide comes from a philosophical issue, as to who the REAL successor should be. Fundamentally the issue was, Either a direct descendant or an elected leader.

        At its real core.
        Shiites are for the direct descendant.
        Sunni for an elected leader. Sunni's make up 85 - 90% if the Muslims, Shiia the remaining.

        Shia tend to be the more radical of the two, however they both believe in the tenets of the Quran which at its core is, "Kill the infidels."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
      A theocracy is a government run in accord with the moral authority of a religion. The state is the extension of the church. Islam is putting that to practice. In England the Queen is the Protector of the church. In Norway the people are taxed to support the church. No ship left France in the 17th century without the approval of the King that the purpose was approved by the church so Champlain had priests on many of his voyages to spread the catholic religion into the New World.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Islam is as much a religion to some 1 billion people as Christianity is to you. Both are based on beliefs and faiths in the supernatural. If one is right, then both must be right. Until the Enlightenment, Christianity was as much or more about governance as it was religious faith, and there are many that still think our founding was based on Christianity and that we should all be guided by that belief. That it's the 'right' and only 'proper' belief.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
        So 1=1 and 2=2, then 1=2???

        By your logic, Bin Laden and Washington were both freedom fighters... not quite.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          Your continued misinterpretation and misrepresentations of what is said doesn't contribute to your arguments.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
            What misinterpretation and misrepresentations?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
              1=1 and 2=2, then 1=2. Nonsense

              Bin Laden and Washington within their individual beliefs, perceptions, and context; both are considered as freedom fighters. Just ask anybody that fought with and/or for them. Just different beliefs and cultures.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                Ok, you've officially jumped the shark. And, this is what happens when you subscribe to moral relativism rather than a set of beliefs tethered to a moral compass. To be a "freedom fighter", one must actually be fighting for freedom. Bin Laden (and radical Islam) have nothing to do with freedom. It's not a cultural thing, it's a tyranny thing. One must be able to objectively observe facts, which I would have assumed you would, and recognize the difference between the good guys and the bad.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                  Yes, you have your definition of freedom and they have their definition, and you're both in error in the world of reality and reason. And now you should realize why so many of us would give our eye teeth to find an actual Gulch, to sit out the destruction that comes from belief over reason.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                    Religion-free countries have existed and do today, and they're by no means free. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Vietnam, and the list goes on and on and on. It makes for a great John Lennon song, but it's a fantasy.

                    It's like debating a liberal who says the only reason liberalism has never worked is because it wasn't implemented correctly. No, it's a flawed premise to begin with.

                    Freedom and liberty require the moral compass of Judeo-Christian principles to exist. If you can show me examples in human history where a society flourished with the freedom, liberty, and free markets to a greater extent that occurred in America in the last half of the 19th century, I would love to see it. That was the closest man has ever come to what you advocate, and it was based on the Judeo-Christian principles of America's founding. If you're correct, history should be replete with examples supporting your position, but the opposite is true.

                    Again, I would love to see successful examples of what you advocate if you can provide them.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                      We're really not talking about religion free countries (though that would also result), but rather belief free countries.

                      That's obviously impossible since we all have beliefs formed from instinct, but maybe a country of men that are capable of assessing beliefs against the reality of life. Might be a small country. Might be a Gulch.

                      You've managed to convince me that's no longer possible in this country.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 3 months ago
                      Your replies keep sidestepping the fundamental point being made, then you raise some tangent or straw man. Take it as a signal that you've skipped a step in your logic and back up to address it.

                      If you claim belief (in whatever) as the foundation of your position, you've placed yourself in the ultimate position of being Attila or his slave. Someone can always claim their belief is greater, more "right", or from the "true God". So, the alternative to the 'belief arms race' is to tie your freedom back to the real world of existence.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by AmericanGreatness 9 years, 3 months ago
                        Actually, it's you that have completed avoided addressing my points. You also failed to counter my assertion of America in the last half of the 19th century or to provide a single example of a society that's flourished under your parameters, which I take to mean you weren't able to find an example.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 3 months ago
                  A "set of Beliefs tethered to a moral compass" IS moral relativism. Zen's point is that 'belief' cannot serve as a foundation for freedom or morality. All objectivity is sacrificed at that point because "a set of beliefs" is subjective.

                  Rhetorically, who determines "the good guys and the bad"? Based on what? Can the 'opposition' claim the same with equal contextual validity? If so, someone has to back up and check the premises of their position. If belief is the foundation, then someone can always say their beliefs trump yours.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
        Weak logic
        "If one is right than both must be right."

        I agree that Enlightenment was transformative where monarchical kings used religion as social order.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
          Both are based on beliefs formed from faith in the unprovable. You can't 'prove' the rightness of your faith/belief anymore than a Muslim can 'prove' his; and if your beliefs formed from faith are true, then his must also be as credible. The logic is pretty clear. Is his wrong because he doesn't agree with your's? Where does that logic end up? Or are both of you wrong in allowing your beliefs to guide your life decisions and animosities towards others?

          I do agree that all human's appear to suffer from the results of belief systems. Look at how many children believe that monsters hide under their beds when the lights are out and have to be shown that there are no monsters under there, a number of times.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
      Well stated, Islam is a belief structure, a social order blueprint and a form of governance. Whoever took your point obviously hasn't done their homework on islam. Sadly, islam is considered a religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
        And you think that Christianity is not all of those things as well?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
          No, it isn't. If it were then there would be a much different culture in the US and other European Christian countries. Unlike islam, Jesus said : "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

          This country wouldn't exist if Christianity was as islam is.

          I do take some offense to you taking my point for having a difference of opinion. But, I do kind of expect that here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
            AJAshinoff: "This country wouldn't exist if Christianity was as islam is."

            This country wouldn't exist if American Christianity were the Christianity of the 7th century.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
            So, what are you doing here? Trying to lead the misguided to the right path?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
              nope. I appreciate the people and the philosophy. I see no conflict in objectivism and my constitutional conservatism.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
                Your religion fundamentally contradicts Ayn Rand's philosophy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
                  It works for me. I choose which aspects of objectivism, Christianity, and Consititutional conservatism works for me, why does it piss off atheists and objectivists so much to know that someone can comfortably maintain this balance? I'm not new here. I've never professed anything other than what I'm saying now. I've also maintained respect for other people's beliefs when speaking to them. While I speak my piece when this issue arises, I've never proselytized anyone here or anywhere. What harm to you is the patchwork of what works for me?

                  When folks here torpedo everything I say on this subject it reminds me that Rand, the woman, is more than respected by those here it borderlines worship: "You shall have no other gods before me."I find this kind of ironic, all things considered.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            I took a point because you maintain that your belief system is better or righter than another's belief system, and since both are belief systems based on faith in the supernatural, you don't see the contradiction. As AR said, If there's a contradiction, check your premises, (paraphrased).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 3 months ago
              AR is not my prophet. While I respect her philosophy I'm not 100% sold into any one philosophy more than any other. Its my life and I'll use what works for me. Rand's philosophy is valuable to me but not all encompassing. Sacrilege!

              Is margarine the same as butter even though they serve the same purpose? Is Kroger brand Root Beer as good as A&W? Is a fender electric kit at Guitar center equal to a 1996 Fender telecaster? I do hope you see my analogy here.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
          Don't get me started on Christianity "as it should be" and how the Bible talks about it and Government as it is today. Key word as it is today and has been for the past few thousand years.

          But the answer for right now is no.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 3 months ago
          It was for most of its history. It isn't any more.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
            If many had there way, it would be again. Quite a few of those laws are still on the books.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
              I will make this point. Do not confuse Religion with Christianity.
              Catholic, Protestant, Mormonism are RELIGIONS.


              This is NOT proselytizing.
              Christianity is a belief in the message taught in the Bible and b y Christ.

              Jews were COMMANDED to obey the Roman Government's laws, pay taxes, and observe the laws, and only refuse when they conflicted with God's Laws.

              God's Laws were in essence "Do No Harm."
              Christians are COMMANDED to obey the Superior Authority (Romans). Except where they conflict with God's commands, which is in this order:
              1) Love God
              2) Love your neighbor as yourself.

              Aside from that Christians are obligated to obey the secular authority, meaning there is a vast difference between "True Christianity" and Secular Religion and Islam.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
                Your denials are ridiculous and you are proselytizing religion with the repetitive insistence on believing sacred text in your perpetual wars between "true" religions trying to exempt yourself. Your authoritarian hierarchy of sacred commands does not belong here and you know it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
                  The Bible had 66 books.
                  The Bible is the most translated and most widely published book in history.

                  The Earth is 92,960,000 miles from the Sun

                  Christians believe in a single God
                  Some Christians believe in a Tri-Une God, i.e. Trinity, Three Gods in one.
                  Egyptians believed in many gods.
                  Jainism believes in harming no living thing hence they do not eat Dairy products or meat products.

                  Now. Stating facts is not proselytizing any more than stating the distance of the earth to the sun.

                  Your religion of Atheism is no different and your violent outbursts making unfounded accusations is actually NOT something that a true Objectivist does.

                  I did not state a belief in one religion over another. I did not encourage you or anyone else ever to convert from your religion of Atheism.

                  Quite the contrary YOU are the one doing all the proselytizing trying to convert people by using all tactics liberal. You are name calling, insinuating stupidity, you have been most rude and ignorant to others you attempt to use emotion in your claims of reason. You demand others be removed form this site for not agreeing with you, and your not even a person flagged as a producer.

                  A=A If something is true it is true else false.

                  You again mis-quote, I did not say True Religions, I said True Christianity just as I have said in other posts True Muslim.

                  If you CLAIM a belief and fail to follow the tenets of that belief you are not TRUE.

                  You claim to be all things Objectivist yet you are not a "Producer" on this site. Since you are not a producer, then are you an Objectivist or a Moocher? You have three choices. Looter, Moocher or Producer and being your not flagged Producer there are only two other choices.

                  A=A

                  I also find your vitriol on religion interesting. I am not sure you can hate the thought of a God with so much vigor when you claim there is none.

                  How can you hate something that does not exist?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
                    The only hate I sense here is the hatred that religious believers display against atheists. It is very much analogous to the mutual hatred among various religions.

                    I speculate that this is why many of them so vociferously maintain, mistakenly, the atheism is just another religion. It makes it just so much easier to hate atheists. Why, they are only barely distinguishable from, say, Jews or Muslims.

                    I have never heard an atheist voice hatred for religious people because of their religiousness. Maybe I did not live long enough. I am only about 80 years old. The hatred I see everywhere is against murderous behavior in the name of religion. Most recently in the name of Islam.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
                      Quite the contrary on my part. Martimus please read the next post below by Zenphamy. "His most recent book is about the presence and effect of belief in all humans, even in scientist. "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks", by Hilton Ratcliffe."

                      I have not called atheists stupid, or lacking reason for their belief system, I only expect the same courtesy in return when others perhaps do have a faith in what atheists call mysticism. To each their own.

                      Atheists have the same issue proving their belief as anyone with any religion. That has always been my statement. Also I would challenge anyone here to look up any of my previous posts and tell me what religion am I? You would be very hard pressed to come up with a definitive answer.

                      Every Atheist has their reasoning based on their perceptions of reality and based on their interpretation of "evidence" just a most religious people I know who have their perception and their evidence that they reason on using their perception.

                      You can have 50 people all watching the same train wreck and get 50 entirely different view points and 50 entirely different reports and statements all describing the exact same identical thing, and the irony is they may all be 100% correct.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 3 months ago
                        Also I have NEVER in this forum demanded someone leave, or be summarily removed because of their view regardless how absurd I might find it or how badly they have misquoted things.

                        I can however point to a resident Atheist and self proclaimed "Objectivist" here in the Gulch who has repeatedly done this.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                wood; I'll offer a quote from an author I've been reading for a couple of years now. His most recent book is about the presence and effect of belief in all humans, even in scientist. "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks", by Hilton Ratcliffe.

                "At a fundamental level, in their reflection of first principles, beliefs found in atheism, Islam, cosmology, or Christianity are in no essential aspect different from one another. They differ only in the way they express details; at their roots, they are astonishingly similar. And that, my friends, is what makes my mission so difficult to achieve. Believers in any of the four faiths cited above, if they are reasonable, rational people, will readily accept this basic commonality to be true. However, they invariably preface their reasonableness with the caveat that the particular group they belong to personally is the single exception.

                Atheists are quick to imply that they have no belief, but they're wrong. They believe that there is no God, although their assertion can never be proven true. Muslims spawn a high proportion of radical extremists within their ranks, based upon the premise that their's is the one true faith, but in the opinion of theis writer, they are just as misguided as the atheists. Somehow, sooner than later, we must come to the realization that our own belief is not the exception to the rule, thereby stripping the implied sense of divinity from what is in reality no more than our fragile point of view, fiercely held."
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
                  Atheists are not misguided for rejecting belief in a god. Atheism means to "not believe". Your author is playing fast and loose with the words. More specifically outright denying the existence of something claimed to exist which is contradictory, as descriptions of a god typically are, is also valid because contradictions cannot exist. Such statements are incoherent and meaningless.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
                    The author, as far as I've gotten so far in this book, is attempting to address the effects of beliefs on human reasoning, particularly scientist, and in this quote is using religious types of beliefs as examples that most people can relate to. In this quote he is addressing the commonalities that believers have in their first principles, those bases, axioms that have no proof, from which their belief systems are built up. He's not really addressing Objectivist or other reasoned rejection of superstition beliefs. In many ways, I reject the term of atheist applied to Objectivist.

                    Atheism is generally defined in relation of a belief that there is no god and their reasoning from there is based upon or around that belief. Objectivist on the other hand, are rejecting the entire concept of supernatural explanations for anything that directly effects the lives of any human (other than internal to their minds) or as a source of knowledge about the world of verifiable facts and reality. Rand addressed the first principles of Objectivist as Existence exists and Life is life. From that base, she then built up the philosophy.

                    Although, as you say, the atheist belief that there is no god may be similar and valid in the eyes of an Objectivist, the route used to arrive at that conclusion is often very different and is often just the choice of a belief that makes more sense than a belief in a god.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 3 months ago
                  Hello, Z,

                  A couple of observations.

                  Proving that something does not exist, without limitations of space and time is always impossible. We quickly approach here the question of what IS means. Remember Clinton's testimony? [I meant the verb, not the Islamic State ;-)]

                  I think that it would be more accurate to say that atheists do not believe in existence of any gods. I think that claiming that atheism is a religion distorts both concepts. Atheism may be an ideology or a philosophy, but it certainly is not a religion.

                  Some of the religious people cruising around the Gulch try to describe atheism and Objectivism both as religions. Whether consciously or unconsciously, they try to smear both by depriving them of their basic rationality.

                  The concept of god is such a deep abstraction. The analysis of the concept quickly leads to considering the meaning of understanding and faith. One of the supreme Christian authorities, Augustine of Hippo, wrote about this. Because I vehemently disagree with his description of those two concepts (understanding and faith), I posted a reaction to his quote in the Gulch. If you are interested, here it is:

                  Is Augustin of Hippo Right? ... Or Not? - Galt's Gulch. If you search for Augustine of Hippo, it will show up on the list in philosophy category.

                  Stay well!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
                    Atheism isn't a philosophy or an ideology. It is simply not believing in a god. That specific negative position says nothing about what any atheist believes himself as a philosophy.

                    Proving a negative is impossible and unnecessary, but if if a claim is self contradictory you can say it is impossible..
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -1
      Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
      Of course, so was Christianity at one time and even more so was the Catholic version and still is, same for Judaism, same for many religions So all Theocracy's are not religions? You are including the USA in that list I hope?

      Two easy ways out of the dilemma. Crisis Of Islam by Bernard Lewis. Second. If you truly supported the Constitution you would never dream of asking "What religion are you - or aren't you." If it is isn't on the t-shirt it's none of your business.I just threw that in for educational development. It is a political and cultural system completely controlled by religion.but it is a religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 3 months ago
    For Christians and for religious Jews, faith v. reason is not applicable, because both religions chose between the first and fifth centuries to base theology on reason, and to use reason to interpret the scriptures. Islam did not. Islam chose to accept as the literal Word of God every word in the Koran. There are contradictions in the Koran, and Islam believes both sides of each contradiction. There are contradictions in the Bible, but Jews and Christians use reason to interpret, and so accept the evolution of thought in the Bible, with the later thought supplanting what in earlier parts of the Bible is in contradiction with the later thought. Further, Christians and Jews both accept that parts of the Bible were meant to be taken literally when they were written, and other parts were meant to be taken allegorically when they were written. The Creation Myth is one of those that was originally meant to be taken allegorically, for example.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
      From the time 379? wen the Academy in Athens was ordered closed and all churches and books other than approved Catholic texts were burned until the discovery of the translations of Aristotle in the 12th century reason prevailed in catholic doctrine? Thou surely jest?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
        Ask any Protestant or Reformer and they will tell you that they agree with you, but that you are confusing the Catholic Church with Christianity. William Tyndale would surely agree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale...) when he was executed by the Catholics for the sin of translating many of the books of the Bible into English for mass production and distribution. When the stranglehold on thought maintained by the Catholic Church for centuries was broken and people began to read for themselves and make their own conclusions, they began to reject the Catholic Church as the official religion of Christianity because they could see where Catholic dogma differed from what was right in the New Testament. Unsurprisingly, this also was the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages and the introduction of the Enlightenment because peoples' minds were freed to explore alternatives.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
          Luther and Calvin were no friends of individual freedom. They placed the individual as responsible for their souls not the Catholic church but they upheld the doctrine of altruistic sacrifice of one self to God's greater glory, grace, and the hereafter. The founders of Protestantism permitted usury and the formation of capital which helped private productivity and trade but they were no friend of reason and Aristotle. The Church of England did not give up the Star Chamber until 1709 thanks to John Locke's work on the copyright laws. Everywhere we find individuals struggling to get out from under the moral, intellectual, and political coercion imposed by protestants. See creationism and abortion positions of protestants. Add "All protestants are Christians" to my syllogism and it still works. .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
            Now you are simply arguing the individual merits of their respective institutions, but you are doing so by twisting the intent of those doctrines in some instances and conflating differing doctrines in others.

            Altruism is not charity. Altruism is the use of coercion to transfer wealth and/or property. Charity is a voluntary act which even Ayn Rand acknowledged to have done in the support of her husband. Christianity does not advocate for altruism, but does for charity.

            As for being a friend of reason, that is all a matter of opinion. When one holds a fundamentally different view of life and its purpose, of course there will be disagreement on the matter. You are holding that any argument other than that which agrees with Aristotle to be necessarily without merit - a wholly fallacious proposition. In order to establish the relative merits of any belief system, one has to first establish the principles on which each is based and evaluate them. A categorical denial without a legitimate examination is prejudicial at best.

            It should also be noted that the Church of England is not a Christian religion. It was invented by a man - Henry VIII - to support his own view on the matter of marriage because the Catholic Church would not grant him a divorce. Locke rightly denounced the Church of England for abandoning reason.

            "Everywhere we find individuals struggling to get out from under the moral, intellectual, and political coercion imposed by protestants. See creationism and abortion positions of protestants."

            That is your opinion and if you want to go into a more concentrated discussion, I will initiate a private conversation. Both of those discussions is colored deeply by one's views on the origin, purpose, and disposition of life.

            " Add "All protestants are Christians" to my syllogism and it still works."

            They may profess to believe in Christ, that is true. But they separate themselves from one another because they have doctrinal differences. They are similar, but not the same. Thus the comparison is actually an overly-broad mischaracterization because it says that because one or more groups share a single belief that they are all the same regardless of their individual disparate beliefs. To apply the same logic is to equate any two philosophies which believe murder is morally reprehensible regardless of the reason why. I caution against such broad strokes and instead advocate for the individual examination of principles rather than people or institutions.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
              What then are he common elements of all protestant Christian faiths? If you are a Christian and a protestant this should be easy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
                Really there is only one I am aware of - the divinity of Christ and that His atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection. However, there are numerous differences between the various sects that all play into this, for example:

                Are Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit one entity or three? And what does each one look like? How are we related to them if at all?
                What is the final disposition of the soul? Is there just one Heaven and one Hell for everyone? What do Heaven and Hell look like and what are we going to do there?
                What is "salvation"?
                What ritual performances or ceremonies are critical for "salvation"?
                Who has the authority to perform these ceremonies?
                Is there a requirement of action involved to obtain "salvation"?
                What is our purpose here?

                There are vast differences in the answers to these questions among the various sects of Christianity, which is why I label them as similar but not the same. Because they differ, it is illogical to conclude that all are true. There can only be one truth in the end: either one of them is true and the rest only partially true at best, or they are all false together. Since there are a plethora of various sects, if I were looking at the matter, I think I would start with the most critical points and see which sects drop out of the running with each subsequent principle evaluated. If there are any left standing, they would merit consideration. If not, that too is an answer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by philosophercat 9 years, 3 months ago
                  That is an excellent answer. It shows you understand the fascinating path followed by Christians as they differentiated themselves across time and sects.
                  But if we go to the core, the divinity of Jesus, how are you to know it? This is the issue. Christians hold this to be true by having faith as the primary means of knowledge from which all is to be derived. But Jesus divine status requires the preexistence of god and in fact there is quist a story about god and the history of the world including floods which precede Jesus. So how are we, who hold that knowledge is empirical, to know that this story is true and of course the answer is that we cant because we hold reason as the guide to knowledge not faith.

                  You say that Jesus' atonement is part of his divinity but atonement for what? For human violation of god's commandments which presumes god's vision for man is the basis of morality. If so then the morality of reason which Gulchers have in common doesn't fit the morality of god which we rascally humans have been busily violating for our benefit since before Jesus and will be again rationally again. Remember Rand said what is needed is a moral revolution, a revolution against faith and for reason.

                  Could you sort out the attribute of atonement without presupposing or requiring god? Two who wrestled with the empirical based of knowledge versus faith were Locke and Jefferson. Locke's struggle is fascinating and I urge you to study it as you see him fully grasp the contradiction and never give up empiricism, Locke demands god provide empirical proof of his existence.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
                    All excellent questions!

                    What I cited was a generic answer for the case for specific vs generic references to the numerous sects of Christianity. If you want to get into a detailed examination of the principles of what could constitute a logical and coherent version of Christianity, I would suggest that be taken up in a private thread.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      The dogma of making reason the handmaiden of faith did not remove belief on faith. It only resulted in endless scholastic tortured arguments in meaningless rationalism. Faith and reason are opposites. Don't try to tell us it's "not applicable" to Christianity and Judaism. It's the same fallacy of calling Creationism a "science".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 3 months ago
    I'm an ex-Catholic Christian (and a Constitutional right leaning Libertarian) who has a theory that the Islamic RELIGION is the invention of the devil.
    Such would be the "angel" that appeared to Mohammed.

    Well, what do you expect from someone who calls himself allosaur?. A complete conformist?
    I'm not even a complete Christian conformist. I believe in evolution. I walk alone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
      There are a lot of non-conformist Christians that just don't advertise like the evangelicals. My father believed that evolution was simply the details involved in creation, and that we had no business telling God how long one of His days were. While I became a Deist, I respected his beliefs, I always enjoyed how he introduced me to spiritual concepts. He always enjoyed telling the story of the conversation between Einstein and Neils Bohr, where Einstein, rejecting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, said "God doesn't shoot craps, Neils!" to which Bohr responded "Albert, stop trying to tell God how to run the universe!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
        Your father did not understand either Darwinian evolution or Einstein.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 3 months ago
          The conversation between Einstein and Bohr is a matter of record. Einstein was unhappy with the uncertainty principle, as he felt it was a way of sweeping the hard work of identifying the mechanisms behind things not behaving as predicted. He always hoped he could find a unifying theory that would complete general relativity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 3 months ago
            I'm not a physicist, (but as an engineer I've been exposed to physics a good bit) but I agree with Einstein on that point. I always thought the Uncertainty Principle sounded like a cop-out. ;-)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
    I'll say it over and over: one can not simply lump every philosophy into the class of "religion" and then through the fallacy of association brand them all invalid. It is a straw man. It's absolutely no different than lumping in Objectivism with socialism and fascism and saying that since all are philosophies all are destructive. There's no truth in the matter.

    Evaluate Islam for Islam. Evaluate each individual Christian sect for its own. Evaluate socialism for socialism, fascism for fascism, and Objectivism for Objectivism. Ad infinitum.

    Do I find objections in the religion called Islam? Absolutely - the main one being the use of violence and deceit codified within that belief set as being permissible tactics to further the religion itself. That alone is enough for me to decry it as being false and anti-freedom.

    Why do I decry socialism? Because it is nothing more than feudalism by deceit: you still have a small cabal of rulers who glut themselves on the works of the masses while pitting the masses against themselves. Communism and fascism have similar flaws.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 3 months ago
      All religion is based on faith. That is why they are all destructive thinking. That is not a "fallacy of association"; they all have the same essential characteristic that is destructive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      Right--philosophy is not = to religion. They are different things. The same with Objectivism is not = to socialism/communism/Republican/Democrat, etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 3 months ago
        Philosophia is a Greek word: "philos" meaning friend or friend of and "sophia" meaning wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. Knowledge must be applied through action to become wisdom or experience. Thus a philosophy is a systematic application of knowledge, but it does not proscribe either an atheistic or deistic framework! As we apply principles in our lives, we gain wisdom. One can argue the merits of the source ad nauseum, but that is a portion of the philosophy - not the definition of the word itself.

        In the end, we must get down to the individual values and principles. Grouping them all under a single heading like "Objectivism" or "Catholicism" or "Hinduism", etc. comes only afterward. It is fallacy of association to simply lump in every philosophy that shares even a single concept just so as to dismiss them. To do so is to say that since Christianity and Objectivism both believe in the same "don't kill" rule that both are equivalent in their merit. It's not only ridiculous, but openly disingenuous. We can say that in some respects philosophy A and philosophy B are similar, but the differences deny the equivalency of A = B.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago
    One might turn the whole concersation around just by saying Yes Liberals or secular progressives Islam is a Religion. One which you have openly sworn to destroy along with the others.As for the ACLU I live in Bight, ME
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimslag 9 years, 3 months ago
    First off, let me say that I was raised in the Catholic Church. I have spent a major portion of my life moving around the world (Thanks US Navy) experiencing different cultures and religions. Religions are beliefs not knowledge. There is knowledge contained in their tomes but the general thesis is belief in an entity as supreme. If you look at cults, like Jim Jones in Guyana or the apocalyptic cult that tried suicide on 2K, they all are based on belief in the leader who is to guide you to a greater place. Religions are just like cults only on a bigger scale. They all have leaders, pastors, priests, rabbis or imans, who are there to guide them in their beliefs. I am sorry if I destroy your objectivity about your theocratic religious choice but I have read and experienced a lot about different religions while seeking some guidance. Most of that guidance was directed in it's manner towards their point of view, not to the individual inner being. I still follow Catholic teachings but am not part of any church. I still believe in a creator or God, just have a extreme distaste for religious ceremony and harping on how to live my life to achieve a greater state of being, with most of it being hypocritical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo