"They are valid when based on rational concepts, meaning some relationsip to objective reality."

Which is ... what exactly? You define it as anything in the "universe" but no human being can possibly comprehend the entirety of the universe under such a definition. It's an arbitrary and meaningless statement. We are constantly exploring "objective reality" or what you would term "the universe" but we've not even come close to a comprehensive understanding. To rule anything out is an act of sheer hubris; subjectivity at its finest.

"Subjectivity is the acceptance emtionly of thought completely unconnected to what might and could exist, i.e., contradictory of existence."

No. Just simply no. Because again, you'd have to understand all of existence in order to say something didn't comport with existence. A much better definition of subjectivity is a human-contrived thought. It's that simple. A thought only becomes "objective" when it can be measured against something real.

"Good and evil are ... self made virtues for seeking or destroying certain values of individual lives."

"self-made" = subjective when the "self" being referenced is a human being. If you want an objective virtue it - just like distance - must be grounded within a standard external to humanity. As soon as one originates any definition with humanity, objectivity goes out the window. And that's entirely my point.

"Now that is one that I have to take issue with. Such a notion eliminates imagination. You have to admit that if one accepts such a statement, one is ruling out hypothesis and conjecture entirely. Are you sure that's where you want to go?"

That does not rule out those mental processes. They are valid when based on rational concepts, meaning some relationsip to objective reality. Math is objective due to being related to the brain activity which is also part of objective reality. Take the very basic concept that is the abstraction from the identities of perceived entities, considered as a set. Mentally a a binary closed operation on the set depending on some common identity of the elements of the set producing the concept of a groupoid or module. That is perfectly objective. Objectivity does not just concern relationships between mater and radiation activity. It includes all that exists including brain activity with the interactions between neurons and other brain stuff that encodes memory. Subjectivity is the acceptance emtionly of thought completely unconnected to what might and could exist, i.e., contradictory of existence. Reason must be logical to be have any validity.

"Going to challenge this one as well as a completely meaningless statement. No single human being can observe everything or infer everything. Are you saying that unless you "observe" it that it doesn't exist? What if I observe it and you don't?"

An example of unreason is to define without reference, such as to something outside of existence by making up such as outside of the Universe which is defined as all that exists in hopes of finding a cause for existence making up different dimensions or supernatural gods to control lives of others by fear. That is a violation of causality.

The human brain can to a great extent distinguish between real and imaginary. Research is on going about that.

"So you are taking the standpoint that good is purely subjective then? An unusual stance to take from an Objectivist, don't you think? Not only that but if one's desires determine good/evil then one is not a rational or empirical being but a hedonist."

Good is perfectly objective in that it pertains to individuals and their relationships with reality and between each other. It is pro life while evil is anti life. Good and evil are not some kind of innate something placed in humans by some supernatural non-being at conception, but are self made virtues for seeking or destroying certain values of individual lives.

"A definition is made in the context of what is known objectively."

Now that is one that I have to take issue with. Such a notion eliminates imagination. You have to admit that if one accepts such a statement, one is ruling out hypothesis and conjecture entirely. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

"There is no evidence for anything outside of what is observed and can be inferred from that."

Going to challenge this one as well as a completely meaningless statement. No single human being can observe everything or infer everything. Are you saying that unless you "observe" it that it doesn't exist? What if I observe it and you don't?

"Good is what is usefully needed in a context of a living thing both for life or satisfying ones desires."

So you are taking the standpoint that good is purely subjective then? An unusual stance to take from an Objectivist, don't you think? Not only that but if one's desires determine good/evil then one is not a rational or empirical being but a hedonist.

Now I happen to agree that no one is conceived being evil. We agree that one becomes "evil" through a litany of evil choices: doing => becoming. But again this goes back to what really is good vs evil. If good is merely fulfilling one's desires, then no objective/independent morality exists for, say, murder.

A definition is made in the context of what is known objectively. If further evidence is discovered the definition might have to be modified. There is no evidence for anything outside of what is observed and can be inferred from that. It might be possible to consider a quantum mechanical vacuum from which the Universe came as space but then some would want to know where or why it came from or exists.

Theoretical speculation about bubble universes multiverses are just, at present, runaway mathematical exorcises with speculation that the math implies real existence. Math can describe only what exists and does not necessarily predict the existence of anything. I remember Einstein cautioning about true math not necessarily having anything to do with reality. Be careful with definitions of mythical stuff. Some have gone out of usage as more rational thought has become popular but some still occupy the mental processes of many.

Many times good and bad are subjective to personal taste such as certain foods being the rage but turn my stomach. Good is what is usefully needed in a context of a living thing both for life or satisfying ones desires. Evil refers to one being anti-life of others and depends upon an individual self which is self made. No one is conceived being evil which one of my brother in laws believes. Evil is self made.

The size of the Universe is estimated from some standard supernovae brightnesses and the Hubble constant which has two different values from different ways of measurement. That is on going research.

The definitions you cite are self-referencing: products of the way in which you define the universe itself because we don't really have any good ways of categorizing the space beyond the universe. But the fact that we can objectively measure the size of the universe even if we can't currently measure the space beyond is a differentiation in my mind.

You don't make any distinction between the universe and reality. I don't assume they are one and the same. My reasoning? One would have to understand the universe in its entirety to assert that it included everything. (One can also bring up the notion of the multi-verse theory, in which each universe is objectively separate and distinct from the others.)

"Good and evil are purely human relationships..."

I'm interested then, in how you define "good" or "evil." If they are a product of human judgement, does that not render them subjective in nature and thus eliminate objective truth?

The Universe is not in space but space is a relationship between matter and radiation. There is no outside of the Universe to distinguish it from. Also there is no in Spacetime, which is a relationship between matter and radiation with time a relationship between motion or change of radiation and matter.

Good and evil are purely human relationships between humans and and the rest of objective reality and not intrinsic properties but are extrinsic properties which depend on context. There is no good or evil born into human animals but depends upon how one develops his own self, which is self made.

I have studied linguistics with respect to grammars and how they convey knowledge but what knowledge is, how it is conceptualized, and its validity is determined by epistemology. There is quite a lot of overlap between them. Words are more a storage method for concepts, while grammar places them in relationships of knowledge for thought and the conveyances of that.

"To be an object there must be something else to distinguish it from."

Scientists have noted that the universe is a finite size, thus differentiating it from other empty space, has it not?

"Good and evil are not intrinsic to things, but require minds to determine what they are in different contexts."

When used as an adjective, yes. But "good" is also used as a noun to indicate something of general beneficial use - something where the object has already been judged by many to be positive. One can also understand it as a past, general judgement (noun) versus a present, specific judgement (adjective).

"I am not interest in linguistics but rather the contextualism of concept formation in epistemology."

Perhaps you don't understand linguistics, then. My wife graduated in linguistics; it is the study of how human beings conceptualize and vocalize ideas. Words are conveyances of thought and language is the context.

Expansion was too fast that most of the Universe (that can be considered as a mental object, a concept), about 94 billion light years across, is not all observable and does not affect the observable universe, about 47 billion light years across.

The most interesting about the relationship between objective reality and consciousness is how a brain views it with limited input. The brain seems to be able to distinguish real from imaginary. The conscious mind presents stuff from the subconscious to decide on whether to act or not, the free will and moral faculties which are delayed from when the subconscious first created it. Consciousness is a observer and action gate. Playing a song, once learned for a piano, seems automatic from 'muscle memory, probably from spinal ganglia. Consciousness observing for mistakes, freewill, to make subconsciousness make corrections.

I'm happy that you now realize that religious property is exempt from property taxes, including in your state.

Of course religious people pay taxes on their personally owned property. So what? The only legitimate purpose for such taxes is to pay for government services provided to secure and protect that property. It is not to give a free ride to any group that claims that their worship of a deity somehow benefits society.

I'm not sure why you choose this particular forum to express your hostility to secularism. Ayn Rand was totally secularist, as is her philosoply.

The Universe is made up of many Objects therefore an Object itself ?

If you think of it, Everything down to a certain point is made up of many objects and if we could see infinitely perhaps even things we think are singular objects like protons, electrons and neutrons might also be made up of many objects as well and so on and on.

Concepts are contextual. 'universe', when used, is used in many contexts to denote wholeness or collectiveness. Universal joint, universe of discourse in logic and math, the Universe for all of existence, etc. To be an object there must be something else to distinguish it from. There is only one use of universe in physics as an object. That is in Quantum Mechanics where the Universe is a quantum mechanical object.

"Evil and good are judgements about things that exist."
I should have said

"Evil and good are value judgements about things that exist."

Where the judgements are in different contexts. E.g., 'good' depends on the contexts of actions, relationships, usages, etc., and depends on who makes the judgement. Good and evil are not intrinsic to things, but require minds to determine what they are in different contexts.

I am not interest in linguistics but rather the contextualism of concept formation in epistemology.

Yeah, that "may" in there is key, though. We won't mention the for-profit hospital system. Let's address the real issue you have:

"blame it on religious leaders looking to obtain government services without paying for them."

There is your real beef. It's your opinion that religious people are pikers - looters - providing nothing for what they get. Doesn't matter that those are the very people you work with who pay taxes. Doesn't matter that the United States isn't getting torn apart by the practicing Judeo-Christian religious proselyte but rather by the rampant secularization as per John Adams foresight. Doesn't matter that the religious institutions are the ones trying to promote good societal behavior in people at their own cost. No, none of that really matters.

"If they want freedom of political speech, all they need to do is start paying the same taxes on their property that private citizens are forced to pay."

So let's take this argument in detail, because when one really thinks hard about this, one realizes just how problematic this approach is. If you allow government to tax - and remember the power to tax is the power to destroy - then by granting the power to destroy religious institutions you are granting government the right to destroy opposing thought. You are granting them complete sanction to destroy the First Amendment and the right of people to the products of their own mind. Go down that road if you choose, but if you can not see the very plain implications of such a policy, you will become subject to a tyrant in the blink of an eye.

Religious institutions ARE different. Their goods and services deal with human nature and ethics rather than material goods and services. They are the institutions of ideas. As soon as you condone the taxation of ideas, you condone the destruction of free society.

"I absolutely can, it is literal child's play. Children and monkeys derive a sense of right and wrong based on interactions and how they react to them or feel about them."

People aren't monkeys, however. Further, you are arguing the hedonist's philosophy then and not Rand: that logic plays second fiddle to how one feels.

BTW - I have a three-year-old right now (and a few others besides). And it's part of the duty of a parent to teach children what constitutes appropriate behavior in society. Those parents who absolve themselves of this duty are a primary reason we have a huge rise in teenage crime, disrespect for others, and a failed sense of self which leads them to question their identity. It's a path to misery for everyone involved.

"But then I must joint out that in that mythos, the devil serves god's aims and exists at his pleasure just as we all do."

There are djinns in the Persian mythos. There are similar agents in other belief sets, But let's stay with the Judeo-Christian one because it's simple.

It's a misbegotten concept that God created the devil. It's an argument which denies free will because it argues that everyone is simply created by God to do what they do and it is all according to His pleasure. It's an argument which is completely at odds with the true Judeo-Christian ethos which states that man is free to choose his/her own future. The harmonic belief is that the devil had his own free will and rebelled and chose a path in opposition to God's. He seeks to entice others onto that path with him: a path of stagnation rather than a path of development.

Now part of it you do get correct in that without opposing viewpoints, the true choice available lacks substance and meaning. But if God's purpose is for His children to follow His plan, what does He gain when they follow the devil?

The Miller-Urey Experiment, putting water, SO2, CO2 and NH3 into a glass sphere with a spark, resulting in a green slime after 6 months that contained amino acids, is often cited as the proof of a primordial soup that underwent evolution resulting in life as it is now. It is a compelling experiment, but it only yielded amino acids, nothing else. No DNA. DNA is something entirely different, and it suggests that the DNA came from somewhere else, not the primordial soup. I don't know where from. From another planet, from a God, from a laboratory scientist who built the DNA and ultimately built Earth's life. And who built that scientist? It doesn't make sense that life evolved in the soup and created it's own DNA sequence directing it's own evolution...a book cannot write itself.

I think I addressed much of the characterization if "extreme" in my other post so I'll just comment here about this comment:
The simple problem is that without religion - without some kind of notion of God - you can't answer the "should" portion of any ethical question

I absolutely can, it is literal child's play. Children and monkeys derive a sense of right and wrong based on interactions and how they react to them or feel about them. My grandson has learned (and is learning; he is only 3 so far) to be kind and treat others ethically based entirely on his experiences and how he reacted to them. A classic example is parents teaching kids to not bite each other by biting them and asking how they liked/felt about getting bitten. It may take some more than others (my brother for example had to get bit repeatedly for the better part of year before he learned it), and some may never learn as they don't dislike it. But it can be done.

Monkeys do the same thing. You can see ethics in their behaviors and they have to religions or beliefs in a deity.
(insert caveat about morality vs ethics here)

If we accept the "existence exists" then it has a right to exist, and this none other have a right to make it not exist without sufficient cause. Ethics determined when that sufficient cause has been met. One doesn't need a god to determine that, even though some rely on what they think their God said on it.

Ok, I cant resist, on more for the road. ;)
As a corollary, good can not exist without evil, so if God doesn't exist, neither does the devil. Who benefits from that misconception? The devil.

So I take it from your terms you are referring to the Judeo-Christian mythos. In that scenario my first comment is to finish the sentence with " - if the devil exists" because it is otherwise incomplete.

But then I must joint out that in that mythos, the devil serves god's aims and exists at his pleasure just as we all do. Therefore, in your scenario God also benefits, and benefits ultimately. After all you did assert "good can't exist without evil", so neither can God exist without the Devil, and in the JC mythos God is the supreme driver and arbiter, and the Devil is needed to provide the contrasting option for humanity to exercise free will - "God's created gift to mankind". Thus ultimately that which benefits the Devil still benefits God.

Your analysis of individualism and collectivism goes far beyond the original point I tried to make. You are much more thorough.

Hmm, look like my comment from my phone never made it. Oh well, now it'll just be one instead of two. ;)

First the easy one: "We know what the right going to far looks like..." is explicitly about German and Italy in the early 19th century. He has said this on multiple occasions, usually by way of immediate phrasing such as "we saw that on full display in the 19th century" - which is clearly not a reference to China, Japan, US, or even Russia. He has made that connection many times directly.

This is, in my estimation, his most egregious core error. He has also said in more detailed discussions that he is referring specifically to the use of ethnicity or race as a determinant of value or merit. Yet this is clearly a left-wing thing not seen on the right. Not merely within the context of collective vs individual, but in pure political terms as well.

By every rational judgement those governments were left-wing:
* They were socialist (Fascism is a subset of Socialism) not just in name but in policy and actions
* They were explicitly anti-capitalist
* They were explicitly anti-libertarian
* Both of their leaders were dyed in the wool of Marxism (yes, Hitler didn't like Marx but also explicitly stated that in his view what Marx failed to grasp was that race and class were synonyms - the rest of Marx' political thoughts he essentially agreed with sans global vs local)

We would also agree that China and Russia were not right wing either for almost the exact same reasons. There were little fundamental differences in philosophy of government between those countries, this it isn't reasonable to say that two of them were Left and two were Right.

Something key to understanding this is that we have to eliminate the commonalities to define the differences. For example, some try to claim he is talking about greed - but greed knows no distinctions here. Greed is either inherently there for all systems or it is a unique qualifier or categorizer. We all, I am sure, know that individualists can be "greedy" just as much as collectivists can. So that can't be an identifier of when one side "goes too far" because it would also be true for the other side.

In order for the phrase to carry useful meaning it has to be not merely unique to either side, but emblematic of it. For example, a dictator is not inherently or exclusively Left or Right - you can have that form of government in either case. Thus you can have a Socialist, Fascist, or Libertarian Dictatorship. (Technically Communism is anarchic in that aspect so you can't have one there; Communism isn't a governmental form by definition - the structure is not that different from anarcho-capitalism but the expectations and reasons are opposites).

And the "too far" phrase is a way of saying "extreme" as in "extreme left" versus "extreme right." This also means that the extreme characterization has to be based on what either side fundamentally is. Extreme hot is characterized by being more hot, for example, not less hot. So to be extreme left or extreme right means to take the primary and unique-to-that-side characteristics and amplify them.

And since we are talking about governments using those ideological categories, how authoritarian said government is is not a valid qualifier as that has to be a factor on either side. Thus the issue with defining a too-far right government.

In part there is the argument that the far right government can't actually be a government. At the extreme of individualism we have no-governance over others because the epitome, the core concept, to individualism is that the individual is the source of all agency and sovereignty. Thus to take that to the extreme means one individual cannot have control over another.

This is why I'm not convinced of the hypothetical emperor example as valid. By definition in that context that isn't a far-right example because to enforce control over groups of people based on that group membership is the opposite of individualism. Thus even a dictator/emperor prohibiting voluntary group associations for any form of governance would not really qualify as right-wing but left-wing. The ultimate group control dynamic is "me" vs "everyone else". Indeed we see this in other writings/speeches of Peterson's where he sees one half of it.

He talks about intersectional and how when you take that to the extreme, you wind up with the individual as the smallest possible minority because not even identical twins are perfectly identical in every way and experience. So in that sense we have on one side "Me vs everyone else" (the largest group controlled by the smallest group) and the other where everyone is a group of one - ie. individualism.

This is why while authoritarianism is not uniquely one-sided in this context, it is strongly unavoidable on one end and impossible on the other. The left tends more authoritarian for other collective reasons as well. Fore example with control being group based, the more free people are to change their group, the less control you have.

For this consider AnarchoCapitalism (AC) again. In the implementation in the Old West (not the Wild West!) you could get kicked out of an association, could be allowed in, and could choose to leave. This places an inherent limit on authoritarian power creep because when the frogs get too warm they jump out of the water pot. As a result, the left always gravitates to groupings you have no say in. Today we call this Identity Politics. And that it is being enshrined in American law and jurisprudence and has been for over a century is a massive stain on the American government and body politic. Specifically I am referring to the "protection" of groups based on immutable characteristics - ie. groups you cannot change your membership in at will.

Which brings us to " But it's not about the stop-point on the Right. It's all about the fact that the Left has no defined stop-point for itself."

I think this is precisely backward. Maximal collectivization of people in control systems is the stop point on the left. But what can be the stop point on the right that still qualifies it as on the right and not a reversal of direction? No matter how you break up the grouping on the left, they are still groupings. Be they arbitrary ("people who vote for X vs Y" or "personal identity") or on immutable characteristics (race, gender), group control is still group control. But again what would that same extremity be for the opposite?

For the right: we can sum up a core concept around rights as "my right to swing my fist ends when it meets your nose" to use a common expression for it. Meanwhile the Left's version is "your right to swing your fist ends when your group isn't in control and mine is."

Thus if we classify Left and right based on the one consistently distinguishing characteristic - the collectivism of the Left - there is a clear end point at the extreme left, but not one on the right; all examples I've found offered or considered myself are examples of a course reversal, not pushing the accelerator down harder heading to the right.

Collectivism may or not be the explicit goal - I don't think many on the left even think about it as such. However it is the objective character of the Left and the underpinning of their entire set of ideologies. It is unavoidable. However, and again the contrast strikes me, for individualism is is explicitly about individuals - individualism isn't hiding under a blanket with something else written on it.

And that, I think, is a key factor in why it isn't being fought for at large. It is assumed safe and not thought about as the basis of expressions. Which is why the Left can slip their poison pills into language and law. For this let's look at one last historical example and how it could have played out differently.

Let's look at "gay marriage" or "gay rights." Right away I hope by now you react to the terms with an awareness that they are inherently group based. That is key. For this I will speak using my political positions. In my view two consenting adults can engage in whatever courtship, legal, and living arrangements they want - to get married as it were. Why? Because they are individuals with individual choices and are not forcing another into it. That is the individualist argument.

However, the Left didn't take that route - and that was actually intentional. They went, as they always do, with it being based on a group - gay marriage and gay rights - with the group being gay, In fact they doubled down on the collectivism when they shifted it to "you can't discriminate because they/we are born this way" - aha, an immutable group! Now as to the intentionality I mentioned: the major proponents of it explicitly stated they did not want to allow polygamy because that group was seen as even more unpalatable than gay people were and they didn't want that group to have the same rights. And yes, the individualist argument would be against criminalization of polygamy. And that fact was explicitly stated as a reason they didn't want to argue from an individualist position.

Now lest that be seen as an academic or semantic argument, consider some real-world possibilities that expose it as a faulty foundation (not to argue them just as illustration). What if next five years from now we discover/determine that it is not immutable? What if it really is changeable or "a choice." Now what happens to your legal validity? It evaporates. That isn't entirely hypothetical, we see that contention within the "trans" arguments. If anyone can "be a woman" for legal and social purposes, then being a woman is not immutable. And with the foundation of "protected classes" being immutable characteristics then that can no longer be a "protected class."

Contrast that with the individualist argument. With that argument nothing changes in that scenario because foundation hasn't been swept away. Consider, ok one more historical reference, slavery versus indentured servitude. Slavery is seen as "evil" because the individual had no choice in being or becoming a slave, while indentured servitude was a choice. Even today America accepts indentured servitude (the military is the big example here), but not slavery. And the argument there is still individual.


And to close it out:
"Collectivism vs Individualism is an easy choice! Individual!"

Yes, virtually every mentally competent individual when given that explicit choice for themselves will make that choice. The crux of the matter is that they are not being presented the decisions in those terms. And by that being the case they are thinking in collectivist terms, which means the collectivist will usually win because you're dealing in their terms. To support that assertion I'll simply point out that during the 'gay rights debate' era I would talk to people who were initially opposed to "gay marriage" but frame it as individuals consenting adults. When I did that every single person I did that with supported the law not prohibit it - the banning of which was a collectivist law in the first place (group A can do X but not group B)! Even a couple of pastors "converted" to not banning it in law while still being individually opposed to it.

”I'm not sure where you get the notion that there are property tax exemptions for religious buildings. Please cite a state in which such is true, because I can't find any in a quick online search. It certainly isn't true in my state.”

This is your state, no?

“Property tax exemptions are available for certain types of nonprofit organizations. Religious, fraternal, educational and certain hospitals are a few examples of types nonprofit organizations potentially eligible for a property tax exemption in Idaho.”

https://www.canyoncounty.id.gov/elect...

“Nonprofits are required to pay property taxes in Idaho unless they are exempt under Idaho Code 63-602F. Exemptions are available for nonprofits that are organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

https://www.hechtgroup.com/nonprofits...

”Every state and the District of Columbia provide for tax exemptions for religious institutions”

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amen...

“As much as one quarter or one-half of a typical U.S. city may be made up of tax-exempt property, much of that churches or church schools.”

https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/ite...

”Now, those congregations are prohibited _on pain of losing that tax-exempt status from discussing politics in any meaningful way. The secularization of America has not been without its casualties and the primary one has been Speech.”

Don’t blame it on “secularization”, blame it on religious leaders looking to obtain government services without paying for them. If they want freedom of political speech, all they need to do is start paying the same taxes on their property that private citizens are forced to pay.

”The atheist insists that humanity is a product of the extrinsic.”

No the atheist doesn’t, at least not all atheists. Ayn Rand defines man as “a being of volitional consciousness”. That’s the commonality, and it is intrinsic.

”But I would ask how an atheist would square a disbelief in the supernatural while simultaneously arguing a continuance of intelligence after death...”

No atheist of my acquaintance argues for intelligence (or life) after death.

” That brings us right back to a commonality of ancestry: the deists' position...”

I have no idea what you mean. All of us have human ancestors. Humans evolved from earlier life forms, which had their ultimate beginning in a “primordial soup” of organic compounds. All of this accords with the known facts of the universe around us. No deity necessary.

"“Intrinsic” simply means an essential characteristic..."

You're avoiding the question. The atheist insists that humanity is a product of the extrinsic. So how does one derive the in_trinsic from the _ex_trinsic?

"All atheists are not nihilists, and certainly objectivists aren’t."__

And your point is what? You still haven't attempted to answer the original question posed. (But I would ask how an atheist would square a disbelief in the supernatural while simultaneously arguing a continuance of intelligence after death...)

"Absolutely correct, and that invalidates the rest of your argument."

How so? As sentience/intelligence prima faciae varies between individuals, it isn't an equivalency. One would have to prove that the source of that intelligence or sentience was common... Oh, wait. That brings us right back to a commonality of ancestry: the deists' position...

"Many religions, past and present, are allied with the state."

Aside from this being a red herring, it is false here in the United States. You have the burden of the argument to demonstrate a church+state partnership and those largely ended before WW I. I can't think of a single non-Islamic nation where the church dictates control of the State with the exception of the Vatican.

"In the U.S., many religions are given exemptions from property taxes, forcing taxpayers (often against their will) to pay for the government services that religiously-owned properties receive."

I'm not sure where you get the notion that there are property tax exemptions for religious buildings. Please cite a state in which such is true, because I can't find any in a quick online search. It certainly isn't true in my state.

But let's go to the underlying assertion that somehow these edifices (and their congregations) are getting something for nothing. As a consequence, those very same congregations are now restricted from freely exercising their right to speech. Until the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and the legal interpretations which came with it, religious congregations were the #1 place in America where political debate would take place. Now, those congregations are prohibited _on pain of losing that tax-exempt status from discussing politics in any meaningful way. The secularization of America has not been without its casualties and the primary one has been Speech.

"In order to argue an intrinsic connection, one must acknowledge the intrinsic exists."

That’s not the same as saying a deity exists. “Intrinsic” simply means an essential characteristic, “belonging to a thing by its very nature” according to http://dictionary.com . One can recognize intrinsic qualities without believing in a deity or some supernatural cause.

Nihilists insist that there is nothing intrinsic about humankind.

You’re conflating atheism with nihilism. All atheists are not nihilists, and certainly objectivists aren’t.

"sentience/consciousness is admitted even by atheists to be the major factor separating humankind from all other forms of life. So by that quality alone humans are on a separate plane.*

Absolutely correct, and that invalidates the rest of your argument. Atheists consider humans to be connected by an intrinsic quality, sentience/consciousness. No deity is required.

Human references to the universe use it as a noun: a person, place or thing (object). Scientists refer to the universe as an object when calculating its size or mass. I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point.

"Evil and good are judgements about things that exist."

I don't disagree that this is the adjective sense of the word. But good is also used as a noun (or possibly adverb? maybe an English major can weigh in here...) to describe not a thing or person but an impetus or direction related to progress. I'm not attributing to it any sentience per se. It is a quality of utility to that which is sentient.

If you wanted to get down to linguistics, another thought is that because the word "good" is used as a noun in terms of general applicability rather than specific applicability, one could also consider it a "plural" adjective - if that even makes sense. That would be straight in line with its use to describe "goods" in the marketplace.

"For starters, it assumes the existence of a deity that created humans."

Yes, it does. That's kind of the point. In order to argue an intrinsic connection, one must acknowledge the intrinsic exists.

"It also implies that atheists cannot derive equality of station among humans."

Also kind of the point. Nihilists insist that there is nothing intrinsic about humankind. If there is nothing intrinsic, everything is extrinsic. So how does one arrive at an equality of station among human kind using only extrinsic qualities? Therein lies the conundrum.

"it’s clear that the lower animals, insects and maybe plants are also “children of God”. That doesn’t give them equality of station with human beings."

Two points. One, I am not aware of any Judeo-Christian religion which acknowledges anything other than human beings as children. Creations, yes, but children implies a very specific relationship and connection to deity. Second, sentience/consciousness is admitted even by atheists to be the major factor separating humankind from all other forms of life. So by that quality alone humans are on a separate plane.

Many religions, past and present, are allied with the state. In some cases they are the state, for all practical purposes. They do not merely distribute what was freely given. In the U.S., many religions are given exemptions from property taxes, forcing taxpayers (often against their will) to pay for the government services that religiously-owned properties receive.