Does this Gulch believe religion and Objectivism are compatible?

Posted by SonofAyn 2 months, 1 week ago to Ask the Gulch
126 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Just getting a sense of where I landed.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
    First off, I'm a constitutional conservative. My experience here and with objectivists overall say that yes objectivism is incompatible with faith (I'm against organized religion). That said, again I'm a conservative, I believe it's one of the greatest flaws in Mrs. Rands philosophy.
    There is no way to determine conclusively the existence or non existence of God. To say conclusively there is or isn't God (and all the surrounding subjects) is not rational. It is better, and more intellectually honest, to say I do not know and leave open the possibility than to say definitively no.

    But that's only my take on the subject. As a conservative it's one of the areas objectivists and I do not agree.

    My 2 bits
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      When contradictions are attributed to God, which is often the case, that is the disproof. Otherwise no disproof is required to reject the arbitrary as cognitively worthless. The same goes for assertions of "possibility". That is not "intellectually dishonest".

      At the root of it is Ayn Rand's entire approach to philosophy based on reason and objectivity. It rules out faith as a means of attaining knowledge.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
        and thereby excludes wisdom? Experiences of others passed down by word of mouth and in text?

        Regardless of what anyone says, Rand included, at the very least there is archeological proof of events and people of the time who put their quill (?) to paper for posterity. Do we discount those because what they have seen is too much for contemporary reason to believe?

        In 1812 as DC was being sacked by the British, literally burning the city to the ground, Dolly Madison and a band of soldiers stayed behind at the White House to gather and rescue documents precious to our Nation. As they were fleeing the British were hot on their tail as the city literally burned around them (the White House too) when a torrential rain came from nowhere, so heavy they could barely see 6 feet ahead of them, and halted the British from advancing while simultaneously quelled the fires.The First Lady escaped, DC didn't burn entirely.

        A miracle. Not the storm but the precise timing of the sudden storm. And before your cast doubts on my claim,many personal journals from the British soldiers and the Americans soldiers who were there claim that this was God acting to protect the fledgling nation. You can read these journals at the Library of congress or the British Library - eye witness accounts and personal text on two continents.

        If we can't take word of mouth, experience and the written word, do we then doubt the veracity of the Constitution? The Magna Carta? Isn't what you're contending just another flavor of 'flat earth' argument or perhaps the global climate change hockey stick?

        My point, you cannot discount something just because it defies your degree of understanding or desire to comprehend in a specific an certain way. To think we know all, or even very much about what is, is foolhardy and naive. To deny the possibility is, as I said many times, when you cannot possibly know is dishonest intellectually.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
          AJA thanks for that story, I didn't know about it, I like stories.

          This particular story is part of a set preserved and promulgated in order to prove that god is always on the winning side, whatever happened it was caused by or with permission of god.
          The twin towers were brought down as the occupants were evil like the traders in the temple, Romulus and Remus were nurtured by a wolf as god wanted to start the Roman Empire, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake by the inquisition as god did not like him, god (as well as Obama) was on the Persian side when Lysander the leader of the Spartans at Thermopylae was captured and decapitated, etc.

          The concept is put in one word in Arabic - insha’Allah
          'an event in the future will happen only if God wills it', but it works in retrospect as well.

          I prefer the view of human life an a heroic adventure.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 1 week ago
          The Jews and Hebrews are much more straight forward and reasonable than people think. Ask a Rabi about miracles and he will tell you they are Natural events, but what makes them miraculous is the timing. Leaving the question to ponder, and the answer,.. to the observer and the reader.

          So many things in history came down to timing...it hurts one or a nation not, to consider their good fortune in a time of great need.
          In my opinion, it is no less objective to admit the outcome was beyond any human action or fore knowledge.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            Religious faith is not about "timing".

            Any religious person may be "more reasonable than one may think" if he is able to compartmentalize and not corrupt his thinking in at least some important areas.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Historical events are not evidence of the supernatural. No one has said "we know all". Knowledge does not mean omniscience. Making assertions requires evidence, including assertions of supernatural "possibility". Rejecting the arbitrary as cognitively worthless is not "intellectually dishonest". Stop accusing people here of dishonesty for rejecting your pronouncements. It isn't honest.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
            Those there, dozens on either side, claimed divine intervention. I'm just repeating what they said. The same could be said for the apostles, no? Yet you would call one history and one fallacy?

            I have accused anyone oh defender of the Gulch. I simpky spoke of my personal experieces, some stemming from you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Claims of "divine intervention" are not evidence of the supernatural.

              "Oh defender of the Gulch" is another of your snide sneers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
                lol, it's a role you choose to put on yourself time and again. Notice you are the only one saying I'm insulting the masses here.

                The claim of divine intervention by the soldiers was written into history. While the history doesn't make it divine intervention, it is history and divine intervention was those witnesses perception.

                The same can be said, exact same historical context, for the life of Jesus Christ. Any belief more than that, what people said He did, is faith. Even so, He is a piece of history recognized by 3 major world religions and the historical content of the places and times has been validated to be real.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  I did not say you are "insulting the masses". I defend Ayn Rand's principles for good reason. It's what this forum was supposed to pursue. It's not the snide "Oh defender of the Gulch".

                  The history of claims of divine intervention is a history of the claims and nothing more. Collective subjectivism is not objectivity and neither are the primitive "major religions" and their sacred texts. Historical evidence for the existence of ancient peoples and some of the mythology does not validate their beliefs.

                  On the positive side, some of the accomplishments of Ancient Greece, the scientific revolution, and Ayn Rand's culmination of a philosophy of reason provide principles for how the individual can know and properly act based on his own understanding of the reality he perceives.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Your repeated accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" for rejecting your arbitrary assertions are tiresome. Stories in which something happened that surprises you or anyone else are not evidence of divine intervention. Arbitrary assertions with no evidence are cognitively worthless, to be regarded in logic as just that -- which is not a sign that someone doesn't understand something with the claimed superior wisdom of your arbitrary faith. Every assertion requires evidence to be taken seriously, including assertions of "possibility".

              Rejecting the meaningless does not require "denial" of anything but the falsely claimed cognitive worth of your own arbitrary assertions and illogical demands to be taken seriously, along with your attempted moral intimidation dramatically accusing those who reject you as dishonest.

              No one has said "we know all". No one. Knowledge does not mean omniscience. We start with reality and proceed to build knowledge with new discoveries, not by working backwards from the arbitrary claims of mystics and whatever you feel in your faith beyond knowledge.

              Your dramatic injunctions against those you keep insisting think we "know all" are irrelevant. Your repeated accusations that rejecting the arbitrary is a claim to omniscience are a false, dishonest strawman, not a basis for your accusations of "intellectual dishonesty". It is your own claims based on your faith and feeling, and your false accusations, that are intellectually dishonest.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      God is easy to disprove. Everything conflicts with god.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
        Interesting way to say that. Still. I'd say that a very arrow view of things. I don't proselytize here or anywhere. Nor do I insist others believe or see things as I do. Still, if God were 'easy to disprove' I, for one, would have found that route with and acceptable and sustainable justification for believing so.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
          So if God was easy to disprove- you would know? I'm not sure... that sounds like a very narrow view of things. Do you consider yourself God? Ahahahahahaa...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
            I spent many years looking for answers. I can't say any one solution presents itself to completely address all things. Still, I have found what works for me.

            One issue many here, objectivists generally, have is with the individual right to determine one's own beliefs. If it's not consistent a-z it simply can't be or isn't right. Life dictates that this is patently bullshit.

            The irony is not lost on me, but I know for a fact it chafes some here when I say that some Objectists are fluent with a Rand reference(title, chapter and line) as the sharpest minister quoting scripture. That ability, Biblical or Objectivist doesn't end conversation or validate a point with me.
            To me Rand was an American treasure, a visionary, but she does not hold all the answers or every thing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
              I agree with you on everything you said. Very well put. I thought your previous comments in this thread came off as arrogant. This comment didn't. I am not a member of the Rand personality cult and similarly dislike those who view her as infallible- as if she were the Pope.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                There isn't any "Rand personality cult" and no one has ever said that Ayn Rand is "infallible - as if she were the Pope". That is a dishonest strawman invoked by Ashinoff trying to make himself look reasonable, which is itself the most arrogant of all in his anti-Ayn Rand attacks. You were right the first time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Well, I genuinely think he was right in his later post and people sure do act as if she were infallible. I'll give credit where it's due, and I thought that applied to his later posts :)
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                    What people act how as if Ayn Rand were "infallible as if she were the Pope"? Ashinoff's misrepresentation of "fluent with a Rand reference(title, chapter and line) as the sharpest minister quoting scripture. That ability, Biblical or Objectivist" is all a vicious smear. No one was that Ayn Rand "holds all the answers or every thing". It's a dishonest strawman. Ashinfoff does not acknowledge, let alone try to answer, the actual reasons given for rejecting his faith.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
                  that gets you a down vote from me. See that's how it works. You play defender of the community and sling personal attack when discourse fails. Typical. Back to obscurity.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                    No one is "playing defender of the community". You are smearing people with baseless false pronouncements. Your calling people here "sharpest minister quoting scripture" and equating Objectivism with Biblical scripture is false and a smear. Rejecting your smears is not "sling personal attack". Rejecting your personal attacks is not a personal attack.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              No one has said "one solution" "completely addressess all things". One solution to what problem? Ayn Rand was a novelist and philosopher. She did not attempt to address, let alone answer "everything".

              The "individual right to determine one's own beliefs" does not mean that there are no principles of logic and anything can subjectively be believed to make it true or even meaningful. Rejecting "If it's not consistent a-z it simply can't be or isn't right" as "bullshit" is Ashinoff's distortion of the fact that contradictions do not exist, which has been recognized since Aristotle. "Life" does not "dictate" the opposite.

              His vacuous smears against other forum members as "the sharpest minister quoting scripture" are a dishonest strawman, not a response to the numerous explanations that have been given here.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 1 week ago
            Are you assuming "God" is a living entity? The ancients walked with creature they viewed as gods. they also claimed that planets, stars, even our earth were gods.
            But perhaps, "God" is really just be nature or the culmination of physical laws that define existence itself and all the things in it...if that was the case, I'd call it "Causation".

            Perhaps, the question should be defined in unicameral conscious terms instead of bicameral pre-conscious terms.

            Many here don't agree, and that is fine, but in these matters I refer to the works of Julian Jaynes. Breakdown of the bicameral Brain. (he uses the the word mind...but the mind in not split in two, the mind is not physical- at least that we haven't found yet).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
              I was speaking about the Judeo-Christian God since that's pretty popular. I greatly admire the Tao te Ching and understand where you're coming from! In my household, we call it "IT." :)

              I'll need to look up all those big terms haha, thanks for the homework! ( <-- I don't mean this in jest)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                There is nothing to look up. His posts are notorious for pretentious nonsense like this one, which is why you didn't follow it. They have nothing to do with Ayn Rand, which he knows little about.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
          Ok, watch.

          God cannot be observed, therefore god does not interact with existence, therefore god can only interact with nonexistence, therefore god does not exist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
            Thin at best and highly a matter of perception. Still, you are entitled.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              Give me your definition of god and I'll show you how it conflicts with reality
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
                I do not go into this subject with people here, at least I haven't for many years (5-6), primarily because the arrogance gets ugly. As I said, I do not proselytize here or anywhere and everyone is entitled to their own belief. I disagree with Rand and Objectivism on this topic. You will not convince me differently nor will I convince you. What's the point?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Well because objectivism and religion are not compatible. I can demonstrate it. It wouldn't matter in the end anyway because at the end of the day you will have to divorce your thinking from reason and turn to faith. There is no point in having faith in the existence of a living thing. God is special because it is that which has no evidence of existence and requires faith not reason to believe
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  You have "gone into this subject", repeatedly. It's what you are doing now. You were asked for a definition and refuse to give it with the evasive excuse "arrogance get ugly". Logic is not arrogance. Rejecting your faith is reason, not arrogance. But the evasion doesn't matter because none of the promotion has any place on an Ayn Rand forum. You correctly say you oppose Objectivism, over and over. You do. We know you do. So stop the faith pronouncements. Please return to something relevant to this forum that you have something in common with.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
            Your first clause is both foundational and fundamentally flawed. Why? Because in order to definitively ascertain that "God can not be observed" one would have to have all knowledge of where and how to conduct said observation, have the power to conduct said observation, AND be so thorough as to leave no doubt. The only way that would be possible is if one had the same powers and intelligence as the very God being postulated and then denied. You create for yourself an argument whose very assertion is self-contradictory in its exploration.

            AJAshinoff has a much more solid stance: to simply say I have not observed but that does not preclude observation which may be.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
              So you believe god can be scientifically proven? What's the point in faith if you can prove it exists?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                The first thing you have to understand is that faith is what prompts one to confirm a hypothesis. Scientists pursue truth first by postulating and then acting to prove one's hypothesis even though they don't know what the actual outcome will be. They hope for a specific outcome, but until they receive confirmation, they act on faith.

                Just got done watching a well-done piece on black holes on Nova (PBS). The initial speculation about Black Holes actually came from a German who calculated artillery trajectories. He sent his theory to Albert Einstein who received the computations with extreme skepticism. Despite his development of Relativity and the Photoelectric effect, Einstein could never bring himself to believe Black Holes existed. In fact, the scientific community was bitterly divided until proof (via indirect observation) was discovered in the late 1990's. Now we find that there are confirmed Black Holes (again through indirect observation) at the center of every galaxy so far examined.

                It is the same with an entrepreneur. There is little or no guarantee that any given entrepreneur will succeed in business. The facts actually discourage entrepreneurship in that 2 out of three entrepreneurs fail within three years. Yet a capitalistic society depends on the small-business entrepreneur and their willingness to fail.

                There's one example of faith from Atlas Shrugged which illustrates the point perfectly. When Dagny pursues Galt's plane and ends up crashing through the barrier/illusion into the Gulch, what principle other than faith is she operating on?

                Once you understand that faith is a motivation to act, you see that actually faith is intertwined in nearly every action one takes. Can one prove that a "god" exists? Well, to do so, you would have to follow the proper steps. First you would have to define just exactly what that "god" would be. You have to assume existence and define what that existence would look like before you can ever attempt to construct a method of confirming your hypothesis. If you assume non-existence, then you poison the hypothesis right out of the door and all you succeed in doing is confirming your own bias - not discovering truth. The other problem comes in defining the attributes of "god" so as to go about attempting to devise a test for that god's existence and all too frequently the definition given is inherently contradictory and again serves only to confirm an atheist's bias.

                Are there fundamentally-flawed definitions of "gods" today which are still nonetheless treated as valid? Assuredly. The Greek Pantheon was debunked by none other than Socrates and his student Plato. One has only to read The Republic to see a thoughtful examination of the fundamental problem between holding nearly limitless power and being capricious. I do not assert that all religions are equally valid because no two definitions for their respective "gods" are equivalent. Does that mean, however, that just because there are 99 demonstrably false definitions of "god" that there may not be one correct one? Thomas Edison tried nearly 2000 variants of the light bulb before he arrived at one which worked consistently. His example was one not only of faith, but in absolute pursuit of truth.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                  That's a lot of bs, thanks for you input
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                    If you pose a question but only accept answers you want to hear, you are blinded by your own bias and are the very zealot you accuse of others. If you want to disagree, do so cogently with counter-examples. If all you have to respond with is "I don't like your answer", you won't like this forum. We make people think and think hard. This is not an echo chamber.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
                      No, you just didn't say anything. Like Dagny wasn't using faith, she could visible see the plane...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
                        Go re-read that portion of the book. You'll find that Galt's plane turned up a valley and Dagny lost sight of it. When she made the same turn, Galt's plane was nowhere to be seen. She didn't watch it pass through the barrier. She plowed forward into a perceived mountain not because she had watched Galt's plane do the same, but out of sheer faith.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                          She was looking for a plane she knew was there. It was not
                          "faith". This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a place for your obnoxious, repetitious promotions of faith. We have been through this before. Please take it somewhere else.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -3
                      Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                      Blarman's rambling rationalizations have been refuted many times here. Rejecting faith as incompatible with reason is not a mere "bias".

                      People do not "want to hear" his repetitious rationalizations because they are very old and still make no sense. No "counterexamples" to his faith are required.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                  Faith is the opposite of reason. It has nothing to do with confirming hypotheses. Hypotheses are framed based on evidence, leading to possibilities in the context of the state of knowledge, not faith. The motivation is to find out. Rational pursuit of knowledge is not faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, not the "motivation to act". It is the opposite of reason. Stop telling us what we "have to understand" as your false premise.

                  In the novel Dagny did not pursue John Galt based on faith. Your arbitrary religious pronouncements contradict the entire basis of the novel and the nature of rational knowledge.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              What you call "foundational and fundamentally flawed" inability to observe a god is the position of the religionists themselves, who invoke it to rationalize why they have no evidence. You are going on about what is "required" and the alleged "same powers and intelligence" of a mythological entity for which there is no evidence and no basis for your rationalization.

              Ashinoff does not have a "solid stance". He, and you, have been refuted many times for your arbitrary claims. There are no grounds to believe in the alleged "possibility" in which you have faith. Nothing is required to dismiss out of hand the arbitrary hand as cognitively worthless, and the contradictory cannot exist.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
      It's a bit off topic, but you can absolutely determine there is no god, because there is nothing that can violate the basic laws of reality, which is what's required for godhood.
      Although, more fundamentally, as someone pointed out to me recently, you don't need to disprove god, because it's just a random assertion, and random assertions shouldn't be asserted in the first place. Much less need any refuting.

      This is the biggest flaw in conservatism, not Rand's philosophy. You can't support the constitution, not consistently, but still believe in religion and all the collectivist, authoritarian, mystical and all round unconstitutional baggage that comes with it.
      Religion has destroyed conservatism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 2 months, 1 week ago
        While I respect what you said I cannot agree. What you present is akin to a Doctor pointing out symptoms as the totality of a malady while refusing to identity that there is a sourse. My view.
        The trappings of religion are problematic, which is why I have faith, not religion.
        'can't support' is a poor choice of words as I am and have always been a Constitutional Conservative. You act as if a person can only choose one complete ideological vein to follow. Hogwash. I, and you, construct and define our personal beliefs and no one has the right to blueprint our beliefs for us. Ask it should be we are the sovereign authors of our own philosophy and it need not be 100% consistent to anyone but you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          A rational philosophy provides principles, not a "blueprint" for "beliefs". That no one has a political right to impose beliefs does not mean that it doesn't matter what you believe. Principles matter and consistency matters.

          Mischaracterizing Peter Smith's support for a consistent philosophy as "hogwash" forcing you to believe anything is a strawman smear. You choose what to think and live with the consequences. Follow bad principles and you get bad results.

          "Ask it should be we are the sovereign authors of our own philosophy and it need not be 100% consistent to anyone but you" is not a coherent sentence.

          The denial of systematic principles in philosophy, including consistency, is Pragmatism. Pragmatism opposes principles, let alone coherent consistent principles, on principle. It's a false but entrenched philosophy resulting from Kantian skepticism and corrupting thinking in this country for over a century.

          Denouncing principles of consistency in Ayn Rand is typical status quo Pragmatist dogmatism posing as anti-dogmatism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Roland_Porter 2 months, 1 week ago
    From my impression, Objectivism rejects the mysticism heavily ingrained in religion and ideology as it tends to polarize thinking away from the individual towards a "common good/goal."
    I consider myself atheist; I can't speak for the other members here, though I imagine they would share this viewpoint, or at least a similar one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      That's my view too, but this is an atlas society webpage and a video on metaphysics on here was downvoted into oblivion. I was confused to see this, plus Galts speech was hidden. I don't feel like I landed in an actual Galts Gulch.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        You didn't. It isn't possible physically, but even in the metaphorical sense this is no Galt's Gulch. A lot of work was put into creating this forum, but it does not live up to its stated purpose, being mostly overrun by conservatives who have some affinity to Ayn Rand but little understanding of her philosophy. (There are also some other kinds of kooks who have squatted here.) Worse are the militant crusaders promoting nothing in common with Ayn Rand and who emotionally lash out when challenged. Their snide smears and other personal attacks shouldn't be permitted at all, but the guidelines are rarely enforced.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Mysticism isn't just heavily ingrained in religion, it is essential to it. But it is much more than a matter of 'polarizing' thinking away from the individual towards a 'common good/goal', which is a social context. It prevents all knowledge, on which an objective individual ethics depends, which in turn leaves people vulnerable to the altruism and collectivism, but also attacks scientific inquiry and the requirements for it.

      Even Jesus was 'individualist' -- in the sense of advocating saving your own soul -- but the religion was entirely other worldly, focused on the supernatural and leaving no guidance for living on earth or even being motivated to do so. It promoted living for an otherworldly afterlife in accordance with duties imposed by mysticism. "Do unto others" here on earth was a distant second, only intended to serve the primary, supernatural goal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
        Would you agree the Ten Commandments are a pretty good set of rules to guide us?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          No. The notion of duties is antithetical to morality. We have discussed this previously in connection with Ayn Rand's article "Causality versus Duty". No duties are a "good set of rules". Morality requires rational choice, not commandments. And most of the reglion-based Ten Commandments are destructive no matter how they are construed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
            I'm posting this again to your thread. I'll entreat dialog if there's perceived semantic.

            The first five pertain to the myth. The latter five pertain to the conceptualization of metaphysical Theft regarding living in Community.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
          No, a better set of ten rules was suggested by philosopher Bertrand Russell

          1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

          2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

          3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

          4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

          5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

          6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

          7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

          8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

          9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

          10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            If taken as duties, then by the nature of duty ethics they are as bad the Big Ten without the religion. Beyond that they are an eclectic hodgepodge with no fundamental hierarchy or justification given.

            Some are common sense but some specific rules are destructive, starting with the first in which he says he is certain of nothing, requiring a "feeling" for pervasive skepticism. (Where does that leave the whole list?)

            The fifth on authority is ambiguous. What kind of authority? Don't respect the law? Don't respect someone with specialized knowledge as contextually authoritative? Don't respect dictators only because there are other dictators rather than out of individualism?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
          No. Mindlessly obeying commands from on high is not a good way to live.
          A good way to live is to think for yourself, which requires rejection of commandments.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
            From 30 man-years of research and interpretation of Tao te Ching

            If I keep from commanding people they behave themselves
            If I keep from meddling with people they take care of themselves
            If I keep from preaching at people they improve themselves
            If I keep from imposing upon people they become themselves

            This was a starter course at age 14. A lot of experience in living was necessary to understand the philosophy. Still....the hundreth monkey principle applies in order that it manifest in any community.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
    In Objectivist Ethics, your life is your standard of value. I bet it would be considered incompatible, as Rand said man should create his own heavens. But to each their own.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Yes it's incompatible with religion. Ayn Rand said to make our own happiness, not 'heaven', which is only metaphorical for that. "To each his own" in the sense that each individual must choose for himself, but not in the sense that it's just as good no matter what the choice. The nature of man's life is the standard of value, the goal is each individual's own happiness, which cannot be attained arbitrarily. But it was a good topic to raise for discussion and did not deserve the mindless 'downvoting' from militant anti-intellectuals here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
        In my view humanity will always be flawed. I don't give a damn if everyone is religious, because I doubt the majority of humans would replace religion with something better. I'm currently reading the Bible (non-religious reasons) and often get really bent towards believers who don't know a damn thing about their God. Sometimes I just want to scream at them, because even in face of what they believe they lack any reaction. They won't change. At least not in a brief time span. I wish I could articulate how I truly feel but I can't through the computer. People are leaning more and more towards science rather than religion. The issue is what standard of value will replace the "God" in their moralities. I hope they choose Objectivism, but who knows? It is a good topic... But I see it as a dead-end if you know what I mean ;) I don't think it should have been down-voted or met with so much anger... but it's to be expected. Religion is extremely controversial haha.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
          "what standard of value will replace the "God" in their moralities?"

          You asked me if I was working on authorship regarding ethics. I'm working on your question. Objectively self-evident and teachable. That is the most valid Quest-I-On to ask of all humanity of all time.

          If there had never been expression of Diety or Creator how might we live in community equitably?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Religion is no longer intellectually controversial, being mostly gone except for some cultures, especially primitives around the world who don't count as intellectual.

          The trend of leaning towards science is good -- the progress it has brought in such a brief time relative to the millennia of primitivism preceding it has been spectacular. But science has been undermined by bad philosophy holding back understanding.

          Part of that is ethics, with altruism and collectivism still retained without basis. Modern ethics is rationalization of variations on previous religious ethics, and when spread will be no better -- other than a more worldly view --unless the fundamental outlook is changed. So in that sense you are right that it almost doesn't matter. What does matter is a move to a this world, life on earth, view as at least a start.

          For the same reason you shouldn't concern yourself with religionists not understanding their own sacred text. It's so contradictory that the details don't matter. There are more important things to pursue.

          Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff recommended to read the Bible because it has been so influential, so your current project is good education.

          Whether or not people over time choose Objectivism for their ethics depends first on their understanding that it exists as something fundamentally different and understanding it. The best that you can do for yourself is to make sure you understand it very well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  qhrjk 2 months, 1 week ago
            I agree with you. Religious people hold "God" as a standard of value. I believe those who favor science will hold "society" instead as their standard of value- not themselves. They'll take whatever ideology that's in front of them. I've only read "The Objectivist Ethics" so I have a lot to learn, but I do want to read a bit of everything before I truly dive into Rand. Specifically Kant for fun haha...

            I do agree that an individual's "choice" matters (and that one choice is better than the other). However, there's nothing that could change a true religious person's mind unless they do the research themselves. So... to each their own.

            Glad you support my Bible-reading!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
            When Ayn authored The Objectivist's Ethics she got very close to a comprehensive expression on values, morality and ethics. I don't know if the permutation, to the use by or manifestation, in community was an oversight in this work or not. I see a couple of interstices where Nurture, Freedom and Liberty, expressed and defined, create a self-evident sound expression of objective equitable interaction.

            Welcome your insights.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
        We all read books and enjoy reading about brave people. But, did you ever really stop to think how it would feel to be in a courtroom with hostile people (including the Judge), surrounding you and no one there to back you except your attorney? You know you broke no laws. But that doesn't matter.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Of course such injustices occur. What is the point in the context of what you are replying to?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 1 week ago
            Read the Post above by Lucky and you will find, I hope, that my comment was Germaine to the question.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              What post where? Can you provide the link or just answer directly?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
                "We all enjoy reading about brave people" and being surrounded in a "courtroom with hostile people" is not germane to the incompatibility of religion with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism.

                Another rash of cowardly, mindless 'downvotes' attacking a simple question asking 25n what she intended her comment to mean in the context of the post she responded to has no rational justification. The simple question has still not been answered.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
    Like life, I don't care if others are religious, only whether they seek to impose religious based arguments, particularly in legislation.

    There are plenty of smart people that remain religious because they choose not to attempt to answer everything. Ignoring them is very much like ignoring the allegory of the Bible. It may not be based on logic, but if you look closely, there is wisdom there, and finding the gaps is enlightening.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months ago
    I once congratulated a gentleman (a Unitarian) on being a Christian. He quickly corrected me. I responded, 'ok so you aren't a Christian, but you constantly perform what are considered Christian acts!' Kindness, love, charitable acts, unselfish acts, all are identified as Christian acts. Our Country was formed and has maintained a certain Christian attitude toward our fellow man. Hate if you will, but that is destructive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
      This country, with its American sense of life, was founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individualism, and the rights of man, not Christianity. Christianity was the ideology of the Dark and Middle Ages, embracing superstition, mysticism, sacrifice, other-worldliness, and duty to the supernatural with head bowed in meekness. Enlightenment rejection of that is not "hate" and not "destructive".

      Most American Christians are better than, retaining some of the old mythology in the background, with mixed, contradictory premises, but largely living as self-reliant, productive, benevolent, proud, independent individuals. That overwhelmingly better values were generally absorbed into the culture and then called "Christian" does not make them religious. They are secular, pro-man values with no basis in religion. Turn the other cheek "kindness", indiscriminate sacrificial "love" and "charity", "unselfishness" and duty to "commandments" were not the basis of this country and not what built it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  TomB666 2 months, 1 week ago
    Until one has agreement on exactly what religion is this is a question that can't be answered rationally. I would offer as an example that some people who call themselves Objectivist are so committed as to be religious about it. So, define what you mean by Religious. Not all recognized religions believe in supernatural powers for example. If by religion you mean people who believe that "there is a god who can make a rock so big he can't lift it," then I'd say there is no place for them here. BTW, that quote is from a former neighbor who was a Baptist and he thought it was both funny and true. I think it is better to talk about baseball or the weather with people with such beliefs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      Being committed to a philosophy, i.e., consistent, is not "religious". It depends on what it is. Objectivism is not a religion no matter what you think of "some people who call themselves Objectivist" and regardless of why you think they are "committed". You don't need social agreement to have a rational concept based on essential similarities and differences. Objectivism rejects faith and belief in the supernatural. It's not a religion and not compatible with religion.

      A Baptist neighbor who plays with theological contradictions debated by Medieval religionists pondering the nature of their god is not an example of someone who is not religious. Contradictions in religion do not make it nonreligious. The one you cite was the theological problem of "if god can do anything then can he do something preventing him from doing something"? There are many more. It didn't make it not a religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
    This Gulch probably believes it, but religion and Objectivism are not compatible.
    Objectivism is the philosophy for life on earth, by using your mind and living in accordance with the facts of reality.
    Religion is about life after death (death cultism) and rejects life on this earth, using your mind and living in accordance with the facts of reality.

    So you see, they are opposing ideologies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 1 week ago
    Welcome.
    We have had these discussions here, mostly fruitful except for a few comments here and there.

    The Big problem is "Religion" is only an organization of some teaching, while some or all of the teachings may have value or lessons to learn, the organization of those teachings seems to ruin the whole intent.

    There are a whole lot of organizations these days we could put in that category like, environmentalism, global warming caused by man masquerading as climate change, socialism, communism, progressivism and post modernism...not to mention political correctness and the whole cultural marxist thing attached to post modernism...yes these are religions too, just as satanism, gaiaism or even sciencism and yes, for a few, it might be objectivism.
    Objectivism is valuable but those that try to organize it, regulate it, impose it...ruin it too.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      The big problem of religion is its philosophical foundation of mysticism, not "organization". No organization could save it.

      Objectivism is not religion and neither is what you disparage as "scientism". "Religion" has a philosophical meaning, which is not whatever you don't like. No one is "regulating" or "imposing" it, it has the meaning that Ayn Rand gave it when she formulated it. When you make pronouncements here that are rejected as irrational that is not "imposing" anything. Either you understand or you don't.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
    I think religion and reason are compatible as long as religion does not make falsifiable claims. Claims about there being a creator with a specific purpose for the universe and humankind sound like wishful thinking to me, but I can't devise a test for them, so I don't see them being in conflict with reason. When they make specific claims about how creation occurred and religious miracles, that part is incompatible with reason.

    I think this might be a minority view. I have only read one non-fiction book by Rand, so I can't speak for Objectivist theory.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
      You should read the non-fiction. "Falsifiability" is not the standard of reason. You don't need to devise a "test" for arbitrary claims in order to reject them as cognitively worthless. Wishful thinking is not reason.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        "You don't need to devise a "test" for arbitrary claims in order to reject them as cognitively worthless. "
        If someone gets something from religious mythology, something non-falsifiable by reason, I see no reason to condemn.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          If it has no meaning in reality and/or has no evidence then it's not knowledge and has no place cluttering one's mind. That's not "condemning", just rejecting the cognitively worthless and ignoring it as irrelevant -- the epistemological equivalent of Howard Roark's "But I don't think of you". The damage of doing otherwise is allowing arbitrary method into thinking and nonsense corrupting the contents of your knowledge.

          But "falsibiability" is no standard. It was all Karl Popper had left in his epistemological negativism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
            " it's not knowledge and has no place cluttering one's mind."
            I don't believe in it, but it doesn't stop me from respecting people who do. I don't have the answers to the fundamental questions that religions try to answer. My not having the answers does not make other answers right, but I feel humble. I respect people's search for truth and meaning, even when they're on paths I disagree with.

            I am often amazed at how hard-working religious people seem to be. They tend to see themselves as empowered to solve problems rather than as victims. It doesn't make religious claims correct. It's just that traits I admire seem to crop up in people who believe in religion.

            If I point out to people how illogical their religion seems to me, it will often been seen as a personal attack, unless they asked for my opinion. In any case, I try to be accepting of people's faith and reject only bad actions or irrational claims.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months, 1 week ago
      Doesn't religion by definition require you to make falsifiable claims?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
        Only if you define religion as such. I define religion as any set of ideals which drives your life. Atheism is as much a religion as any theistic creed, as it drives one's values and choices. (PS - that's the same thing the Supreme Court held when it granted atheists protection under the First Amendment.)

        I think one of the things that tends to give many religions and philosophies perceived flaws is that they confuse the principles with the inconsistent behaviors of their respective subscribers with respect to their professed tenets. Human beings are notoriously flawed: fickle and emotion-driven. Thus any religion or creed which demands perfection such as the Judeo-Christian tradition is going to appear to be flawed because it contradicts with basic human frailty. The question is how the religion attempts to resolve this seeming contradiction.

        To me, however, there is one question which the common philosophy tends to ignore and only the theistic "religion" approaches: that of the end state of the soul. People want to know what the end-game is to existence. The major flaw I see in atheism is that it provides no such postulation aside from nihilism. People want more than this. They want to matter. And I think this core rationale is key: it is fundamentally unreasonable to accept as a precept of existence one's eventual non-existence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 1 week ago
          "I define religion as any set of ideals which drives your life."
          But that's not religion. You can't choose your own definitions.

          "Atheism is as much a religion as any theistic creed, as it drives one's values and choices."
          Atheism is a rejection of religion, so is not a religion of it's own.

          Whether something is a set ideals for life or not, is not alone sufficient to define something as religion or not. Religion is the specific set of ideals that reject reason, in favor of mysticism. That reject life on this earth, in favor of an after life.

          I think you are trying to redefine terms to try and reverse engineer them into your preset conclusions, instead of thinking rationally and honestly and arriving at the correct conclusions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
            "But that's not religion. You can't choose your own definitions."

            Please see definitions #2, #4 on Merriam Webster's site: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...

            "Atheism is a rejection of religion, so is not a religion of it's own."

            See above. BTW - an anti-definition is not a definition of what something is.

            "Whether something is a set ideals for life or not, is not alone sufficient to define something as religion or not."

            The Supreme Court begs to differ with you. Their protection of atheism under the First Amendment was based entirely on this rationale. If you would prefer not to have your ideas protected...

            "Religion is the specific set of ideals that reject reason, in favor of mysticism."

            You do precisely what you accuse me of. And yet your proposed definition is poisoned from the start. When you start with an obvious straw man definition, you will reach erroneous conclusions.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              The Supreme Court did not endorse Blarman's absurd claim that rejecting religion is religion, nor could it: The Supreme Court rules on law, not philosophy. It does not "beg to differ" with us in rejecting Blarman's religious proselytizing, with or without his pretentiously stilted language about the court "begging".

              The Constitutional protection of rejection of religious belief under the law falls under freedom of thought and speech, in particular in the realm of religious debate and thought, i.e., about religious topics. It does not mean that rejection of religious belief is itself on religious grounds.

              Obviously, his "if you would prefer not to have your ideas protected..." is a non-sequitur. The Constitution is not based on religion and the Bill of Rights does not depend on subservience to religious belief, let alone Blarman's promotion of faith.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Religion is not "any set of ideals which drives your life". Blarman's definition is false. He refuses to acknowledge the essential difference between reason and faith. He fallaciously includes all philosophy in his anti-concept for "religion" in a package deal, then parlays that into his self-contradictory claim that atheism -- the rejection of religion -- must itself be religion. He reaches his contradictory conclusion by employing contradictory anti-concepts.

              Common word usage described in dictionaries does not distinguish between valid and invalid concepts and is not the basis of rational philosophy, but the dictionary link Blarman pretentiously intones to "please see" is the opposite of what he claimed.

              "Definition of religion
              "1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
              b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
              (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
              "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
              "3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
              "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

              "Definition of religious"
              1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

              Blarman contradicts himself again even in his own appeal to authority.

              "Don't bother to examine a folly, only ask what it accomplishes". Yet we have examined it. It has been examined and refuted over and over following his repetitious and inappropriate faith promotions here for years. He keeps coming back with his evangelizing as if nothing had been said rejecting it, which he refuses to acknowledge. It is not honest. It is obsessive, repetitive evangelizing oblivious to all rational response.

              What is it intended to "accomplish"? He is his trying to rationalize religion as intellectually impregnable by claiming it includes everything, even the rejection of faith. That is the package deal. We supposedly can't reject religion without rejecting all of philosophy, inverting the hierarchy, leaving us with a false premise and no choice but to argue over what kind of religion rather than reject his faith out of hand as cognitively worthless.

              But there is a sense in which it is deeper than that logical flim-flam: In proclaiming the rejection of religion itself to be religion he's foisting the notion that all thinking is the same psychology of arbitrary, rationalistic, religious thinking, and in that respect objectivity, as we know it, in science or anything else, including atheistic rejection of religion, can be no better than the religionists and not essentially different. As long as he and others of the embedded religious ilk remain entrenched with that psychology of thinking they will never be able to know the difference.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Blarman's assertion that "You do precisely what you accuse me of" is patently false. We have nothing in common with his rationalizations for faith. Recognition that religion is based on mysticism, i.e., faith, in rejection of reason is not a "proposed definition poisoned from the start" and not "an obvious straw man definition". It identifies an essential characteristic of religion and has been known for centuries. It is not a "proposal". Faith is the opposite of reason. The "poison" is faith rejecting reason, not identifying it for what it is.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Blarman continues to refuse to acknowledge that "Atheism is a rejection of religion, so is not a religion of it's own". His refusal to acknowledge the simple logic is not justified by his non-responsive circular "See above" referring to his own contradictions as an authority. He has no argument, only the clinging to a contradiction desperately and dogmatically trying to brand atheism as religion. Rejecting religion is not religion.

              His "by the way" -- as if he had never tried it before and had not been refuted many times -- repetitive dismissal of the definition of a-theism as rejecting theism by pronouncing it to be an "anti-definition" that "is not a definition of what something is" is patently absurd. Of course it is says what something is: "the rejection of religion". As a definition of the concept it has a genus and a differentia: "rejection" and what is being rejected.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 1 week ago
          This is a song written by a father whose young son died from SIDS. He is hoping to see his son again even if as a ghost.

          We saw a ghost inside our house
          Or was it wishful thinkin'?
          Oh god, don't leave us by ourselves
          Or we're bound to take up drinkin'

          Please send us a miracle
          So I know that there is meaning
          I said, "I think that it's a miracle
          Just to be breathin'"

          So live on
          Baby live on
          Live on
          Baby live on

          Packed up my clothes in a grocery bag
          I'm going to find the creator
          An old man in the clouds or a happy little alien
          Whoever it is I need to thank her

          And even though I don't know God
          I'm happy with the mystery
          And I'm certain that I feel it
          Every time that you sing to me

          Songs, you say
          Life is like a song
          It's a song
          A hum-able song

          I watched you sleep until 5 am
          Cause I want to be part of your dreaming
          Oh love, don't leave me by myself
          Or I'm bound to lose my meaning

          We'll start a little family
          And call it our religion
          Hunt for ghosts inside our house
          'Cause we'll never give up wishing

          That we live on
          May we live on
          In our song
          Our hum-able song
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
          To accept one's end is the only rational outcome. To irrationally create a non-entity for comfort to placate fear is insane. Religion is the creator and predator of irrational fear. And religion takes on many aspects. Monetary systems. Legal systems, Public address systems, Educational systems.....to believe in anything is to expostulate Can't to others in the face of possibility or probability.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Religion is not "any set of ideals which drives your life". Religion is based on faith. It is primitive pre-philosophy, not philosophy. You may not invert the concepts to include reason as a kind of religion.

          Atheism is not a religion. A-theism means rejecting theism. It is a consequence of reason. It is not "nihilism". This has been explained to you many times here and you continue to return with the same nonsense and no acknowledgement as if nothing had been said.

          Rejecting your faith is not "fundamentally unreasonable". Religion does not "resolve contradictions", it creates them. There is no "end game to existence". This isn't a game at all. Telling us that people "want to matter" is not an argument for rejecting reason for faith. It is not "fundamentally unreasonable" to acknowledge that people die after a finite life span and does not mean that people "don't matter". This is not the place for you to repetitively promote your faith out of psychological desire for immortality.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Commander 2 months, 1 week ago
            Belief: The hardest obstacle to move, destroy or change in the universe.
            Were you raised in a culture where theism was prevalent? I'm going to make that assumption with the next question. What process, significant events, emotional, intellectual changed your awareness?

            The question is in earnest....not prodding.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
          Atheism is no more a religion than off is a TV channel,
          than being bald is a hairstyle,
          not-collecting-stamps is a hobby,
          and people who do not play sports are a type of athlete.

          (From: theatheistconservative.com/)

          What women (and men) want-
          when you want something you cannot have, that is religion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
            If the only way you can try to define something is using an anti-definition, I'd suggest you re-think your approach. It takes zero thought and/or effort to say "that's not what I believe" and it provides zero useful information.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
              Defining atheism as rejecting religion is not an "anti-definition". It is defined in terms of the concept religion because without the theism it is not there to reject. There is no a-theism without the theism. It also shows why atheism is not another religion as you repeatedly assert without logic . Forming concepts in a logical hierarchy does not "take zero thought" and does not "provide zero useful information".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Lucky 2 months, 1 week ago
              Correct (in part).
              If membership of a class is set by defined attributes of an individual entity, then the absence in an entity of that attribute precludes membership of that entity in that class.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
                There is nothing correct about his assertions. His premise that it's an "anti-definition", i.e., not a definition, is false to begin with. You don't need convoluted descriptions in term of class membership to observe that rejection of theism is a perfectly valid definition identifying the concept "atheism". The genus is "rejection", the differentia is what kind of thing is being rejected.

                His claims that such a rejection takes "zero thought" and is "zero useful information" are false. It takes thought to judge what you accept and what you don't, and the "information" is identifying the choice you made.

                He is also still confused over the fact that atheism does not say what you are for. People may be atheists for good or bad reasons or none at all. Here we are basing discussion on a rational approach to knowledge from which atheism is a consequence, not a "religion". He uses his confusion over that to rationalize calling atheism "nihilistic" because he wants everything not religious to be damned as nihilistic. Whether or not someone is a nihilist depends on what, if anything, he is for. Being atheist doesn't imply anything about that either way. It doesn't make it "nihilistic".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
        "Doesn't religion by definition require you to make falsifiable claims?"
        I think for many people religion is a set of songs, scriptures, and holidays that connect them with how their ancestors tried to understand the world. It doesn't mean they themselves use the stories literally to understand the world.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          The songs, scriptures and holidays have a ritualistic meaning but there is much more than that. They do believe in a god, a lot of the mythology, and the ethical standards which lead to constant guilt because they are impossible to follow. That in turn often leads to religious on Sundays (along with a lot of ritual and socializing) and ignoring it the rest of the week, except when something dramatic and personal happens in which case they wallow in it for awhile.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 1 week ago
            "ethical standards which lead to constant guilt because they are impossible to follow"
            Catholics have perfected it. They're born guilty because the first humans sought knowledge. If they break the rules, they can just confess.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 1 week ago
        Here is the problem with that: "However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion". Wikipedia...can't believe I went there. But, lets just say its a set of ethics, behaviors and world views...not all religions make such claims as you asked. Like the isms I suggested act like a religion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Religion has a lot of elements in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, but one of them is the mysticism as essential. Social fads emotionally clung to can serve a similar role as religion but are not philosophically religion. Science is not a religious "ism" or anything like it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo