On postings of the "Christian Egoist...
I would not expend much effort to understand his strictures on epistemology. (I would be replying on this post, but it connects with some separate site, which I choose not to visit.) I would like to see him cast his arguments in syllogistic form and subject them to scrutiny by any number of logicians I could name. The fact is that many of his statement could not pass muster as logical propositions. For example he writes: "An idea which is logically impossible is an idea which violates the basic laws of logic..." This is simply circular. It would not pass muster as a premise for a syllogism and says nothing. The key to understand the "Christian Egoism," it is apparent, is to realize that he/she begins with belief in God and will alter any other premise whatsoever in order to make that belief fit into Objectivism, or, at least, a logic context acceptable to Objectivists. Now, why would it be so important to the Christian Egoist, first and foremost, to convince a small and culturally irrelevant group of atheists to accept a higher power?
I had no idea about this thread until just now. I'm always happy to answer directly for myself if anyone ever wishes to contact me through my blog or facebook page (just search "The Christian Egoist).
@ WDonway: The statement you quote is MEANT to be circular. It is not part of an argument. It is an elaboration or explanation for my readers about what I mean by "logically impossible". I am simply explaining my terms there (which really should be obvious if reading it in context).
You say it is apparent that I begin with belief in God and then alter any other premise in order to fit Objectivism? Where is this so "apparent" in any of my writing... the writing that you apparently do not wish to read?
I apologize that I cannot post all of my writing on here, and that I must link to my blog... unfortunately that is how this site is sort of set up.. :/ Don't know what you expected.
If you had read any of the articles I linked to, or cared to explore my blog further, you would find posts like this (http://tinyurl.com/kc2qb9x) which demonstrate that my commitment is to truth before any ideas.
Or this post (http://tinyurl.com/mtnebbq) which condemns Christians for their anti-intellectualism and irrationality.
Or this one (http://tinyurl.com/l97roxo) which presents a very simple and straight forward argument for the existence of God (indicating that I don't START with that assumption).
Or this one (http://tinyurl.com/b65qdvv) which very objectively analyzes the debate between Christian Apologist, Dinesh Dsouza and Objectivist Philosopher, Andrew Bernsteing... in which I outline my objective reasons for disagreeing with BOTH and demonstrate why Dsouza is worse.
As to my motives for posting on here, I suspect it is the same as many of you: I find great value in Rand's writing and philosophy (though I don't agree with all of it), and I enjoy taking her (right) ideas seriously and applying them to all of reality. I also enjoy sharing some of those thoughts and discourse with people who hold similar values.
As for my epistemology, you are more than welcome to read what I have written. This (http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...) is a link to all of the posts tagged "epistemology" on my site. And you are welcome to contact me with any relevant or clarifying questions. You are also welcome to comment (or list objections) in the comment section to my posts on my site OR on this site under the corresponding link that I have posted on here.
In short, there are a number of avenues you could have taken (and are still welcome to take) to answer all of your "questions"... unfortunately it does take a little bit of effort -- though probably not much more effort than this post of yours took.
The radical left has found a welcome home within the EPA, and a strong argument can be made that many of their directives for the last two decades are mostly anti-Capitalist in purpose.
His posts are beyond me at my point in time, and my youthful zest for debate has long been spent for other interests. He could be all wrong, but I couldn't prove it...or need to.
Glad to hear that atheism is not required, although I am probably one, but don't see the need to declare myself as such. There have been too many times in my past that I was welcome to some sort of 'guardian angel'.
I see know harm in his postings, and he doesn't threaten me whatsoever.
Historically. Protestants believed it was their mission to convert the unbelievers to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. Nowadays, any number of christian factions feel the same sense of obligation and duty. I vote we swat him in the nose with a rolled up newspaper and then rub his nose in the mess he writes.