Right on, Khalling!

I claim that each individual should develop their own, personal philosophy. Whether it an adoption of the one someone else developed, modified or not, does not matter. The key is that it becomes one's OWN. Thoroughly understood and faithfully adhered to.

Exactly, Mamaemma. A premise is an assumption for a current point you're trying to make.

The big challenge in philosophy is- first premises. That is the foundation for all the rest. And that's Aristotle's most profound contribution to our civilization.

See descriptions and consequences of:
- The law of identity and
- The law of causality.

Hello, Scott,

I am the one who, in this sequence, originally used the phrase "waste of time". It came out because I was frustrated by the contradictory terms arising form an original comment, my disagreeing comment to that and the following response to my comment. If my use of that description can be construed to be personally offensive, I sincerely apologize. Throughout my short "life" in the Gulch I have tried strenuously to respect everybody. Of course, some more than others, based on my subjective evaluation of their contributions and the quality of their reasoning. I do not think that I have ever been disrespectful to anyone, but that is not for me to judge.

Every participant here has heard the AR being quoted as saying: "If you find a contradiction, check your premises." When one observes a contradiction, points it out and the observation is ignored or the re-examination evaded, the discussion, in my humble opinion, quickly becomes a waste of time. Another producer here pointed out to me the value of helping others understand their mistakes (I call it a good day when I make less than hundred mistakes.). But you only can try to teach others, you cannot "learn" them.

Because of lack of reasoned responses, or evasive approach to the points of the discussion or going around and around in what I call "circular reasoning", by now, there are three participants in the Gulch with whom I refuse to have any further conversations. Three out of tens of thousands sounds to me as a pretty strong evidence for the general quality of the conversations which we conduct here.

Please, keep up you great work. I envy you your patience and eloquence.

All the best.

Ksilver3,

If I could give you +10 on this comment I would.

Would not disagree.

In my religions second book of scripture it ends with a challenge to adopt the principles and test them in your life to see if they bring forth good fruit.

Also in the Book of Mormon is Alma 32 which outlines what looks like scientific process for testing your faith against the results of it.

Reguardless of where something comes from, if you believe the bible to be inspired by god or not, or some other text. It always will go through some man for interpretation. That interpretation can only be done based on the view and understand of the man (or woman) who receives. Mistakes will be made in that, and its up to us to identify them.

There is within religion many good things that will bring good things to you if you live them. I would say the same about Objectivism. The key is to have an open mind, test and validate ideas against what you know, and what they do for you in your life. Then adjust accordingly. This is what any reasonable religion would require of us, be it Atheism, Buddhist or Christian. We all must use our minds to test the words of others and determine if they are truth or false.

Thanks for sharing you view of how to separate the falsehoods from the truth. As Jefferson put it to his son "Question everything even the very existence of God" its what we all must do.

I would love to hear more about that conference call. Fascinating concept, and an idea that could actually bridge the gap between amorphous philosophy and actual solutions.

I don't think I can handle a religion debate and an abortion debate on the same thread. I'll agree to severely disagree there for the time being.

"Christians are taught their god is kind, that he is all powerful and all knowing. If so, why didn't he stop Hitler from frying 6M Jews? Stalin from starving 20M?"
A very typical oversimplification. The God of the Bible is not a benevolent puppeteer, he is a creator. Once people are created, they have free will to live their lives in any way they see fit, and suffer the ramifications.
Whether you believe or not, let's think a little deeper than juvenile "where's your perfect God now?"

Clarifying:

- right on the misleading use of "cut spending"

- "Pro-choice" refers to the RIGHT TO CHOOSE how one's body is used - not just pro-abortion, but the freedom to not have abortion precluded out of ethical-religious dogma.

- "Pro-life" is misused to treat the life of a small group of cells or a larger group as having the same rights as an independently surviving person. One could extend that argument to the ridiculous to make a point - preserving every egg and sperm. The question is a human one of ethics and law. At what point rights are imbued on a human? The intrinsic approach is an abyss of the arbitrary. Pro-life used properly respects human life as the priority. A woman carrying a fetus is fully a human, the parasite in her that is a potential full human is not one yet. Potential and actuality are distinct. Does the fetus own her? That's the ethical question. The answer involves a what and a why. To address such questions we have philosophy.

Jconne, what exactly does it mean to "check your premises?" Does it mean to question your assumptions?
Edit: clarity

Yes Mamaemma - the solution is the ability to introspect and rethink one assumptions - as Rand said, "Check your premises." That skill is not taught and it is the key.

If one cannot question the guilt-laced dogma, there is no next step. The good news is that people can if they choose to. Ahh - free will at play. And that is a sign of the fundamental character of people.

"Why do atheists spend their precious time trying to make Christians feel inferior and foolish for their beliefs"
I think you made a very important statement here. I have read a lot of the posts and comments in the atheist/theist vein very carefully, seeking to clarify my own opinions concerning same.
The statement you made that I quoted above describes an attitude that I have seen many times in these discussions, but my interpretation is not that atheists are trying to make Christians feel inferior, but rather that some, not many, of the theists have a chip on their shoulder and must feel inferior within their own minds.

Roy, I think that the reason that almost any point can be argued from the bible is the range of positions represented is almost unbounded.

My way of dealing with this is to identify that all successful liars tell a lot of truth before slipping in the gotcha. The bible is a collection of stories written for an author's purpose over many centuries. To claim it represents the word of some omniscient, benevolent source is just arbitrary. It is up to us to recognize and judge any contradictions presented. Our standard should be reality and reason, not arbitrary and often destructive assertions.

Jconne, I remember reading Atlas and Fountainhead for the first time, and even though I was pretty young, thinking that the ethics that Rand was illustrating flowed from just looking at reality, and they needed no further authority than that. But I have never been able to explain that to many people, as they are absolutely sure that ethics must come from outside ourselves and our reason.

Christians are taught their god is kind, that he is all powerful and all knowing. If so, why didn't he stop Hitler from frying 6M Jews? Stalin from starving 20M?

The telescope can only see so far. If you define the universe by how far your telescope can see is there a problem with that? What does the universe exist in?

These basic questions led me away from religion not closer to it.

Exactly Fred - and I think they are contradictory. Evidence-based and an alternative are in conflict.

As I write this, I'm on a conference call about the ideas that tamed Christianity from its early barbarism to today's state that does't find it necessary to "kill the infidel". The question is, are there principles that tamed Christianity which can be applied to the current Islamist jihadists or those vulnerable to their ideas, who think they MUST kill the infidel. Thus they are striving for a theistic-totalitarism to integrate their ethics and politics. In fact, their ethics is wrong based on an erroneous epistemology and metaphysics - the foundation universal issues.

One point made was that, prior to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, there has been no consistent, comprehensive system of ethics other than the intrinsicism of religion. People rejecting the slop and arbitrariness of subjectivism had no alternative to a religious system of ethics.

If you want to understand this, learn to distinguish the intrinsic, subjective and objective basis of value. This is one of many trichotomies Rand identified as an antidote to false dichotomies.

Many feel the need for religion as their only means of being moral. Objectivism answers that concern - how to be moral and be in objective reality - with one consistent standard of what is true and false.

RE: "I would suggest that he should have identified himself as such."
See that little red badge next to my member name (sdesapio)? If you click on it, it'll take you a brief description of what it represents ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq4... )

RE: " if he believes that censoring the people to communicate in his house'... "
Not really censoring Fred. We're just asking that you try to keep the bar raised to a higher standard.

RE: "Identifying myself properly is something..."
We get it Fred, but unfortunately, putting a name at the end of your posts is not "identifying yourself properly." Typing something in a comment doesn't make it true.

RE: "I do however strongly object to the accusation of my adding my name , web and email address as spamming."
I know you're not spamming intentionally Fred. Just do me a favor and don't add your website URL or email address to any more comments ( See: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1... ).

Thanks again.

RE: "it would be interesting to know what it specifically is that you consider a waste of time?"
I was quoting you Fred ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/25... ). I was telling you that you can do better than telling another member they are a waste of time. It does not add to the discussion and lowers the bar. Let's shoot for keeping the bar higher than ad hominem.

RE: "Spam is normally associated with someone trying to sell something"
Not necessarily. I know it is not your intention to Spam Fred, but regardless of intention, repeated link posting is not permitted. Comment Spam definition: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/comment_...

RE: "Furthermore I would ask you who you believe gives you the authority to tell anyone how to post."
Me Fred. I give me the authority. I run the place.

RE: "I post my name and email address as well as a website to encourage further commentary and in order to not hide behind a pseudonym as so many people tend to do."
I appreciate that Fred, but without going to great lengths, no one can verify who you say you are in an online forum. It is in fact possible for anyone to claim that they are indeed the real Fred Speckmann - who we've all come to love and appreciate here in the Gulch over the years.

RE: "Of course if anyone doesn't like what I or anyone else has to say, they are free to ignore my post. "
That's right Fred. Now, please do me a favor and don't post your personal email address or links to your personal website on any more comments ( See "Galt's Gulch Code of Conduct": http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq1... ).

Thanks Fred,
The Management ;)

Ok, I realized you didn't know that. Carry on. Kaila

A general point - the AS movies are at best a tease to entice people to look closer at the fiction and non-fiction of Rand et al. Civilizations have been lost before and we are striving to not have that happen to ours.

For those so enticed, please note two points:

1. A significant sub-movement has been critical of ARI for protecting the integrity of Rand's work. They are accused of being "orthodox" or "closed" for not admitting a bunch of varying opinions. This can be a big distraction from getting the value there. The key to sorting this out is a simple, clear principle: An author has a right to name their intellectual property. People with alternative opinions that they may call "improvements" should call their system or variant of another's system by their coined name such as Kelly-ism and not hijack the name of the original innovator over objections. This especially applies after the originator is no longer alive and able to argue against the differences.

2. ARI is making tons of content, including lectures and courses available for free. All that is required for access is signing up. Check it out.

You will find courses on the history of philosophy, economics, and much more. All of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures and the Q&A are there. Also the TV interviews. And now the history of OCON content is becoming available.

K,
While an atheist, I certainly don't identify with "the group." I want to be known by so many other identifiers and qualifiers. lol. But- "but when you start from the premise that my currently un- provable premise is the only possibility, it's hard to have a debate.." this is the point. Why is it up to the atheist to even recognize the concept of god? Acknowledging the possibility, in science, means that there needs to be an hypothesis, tests, evidence, and logic. Your issue with atheists demanding proof, is my same frustration with the religious demanding faith. The debate will always hinge on that-unless we are talking about the brand of atheist who enjoys being defined by atheism, which strikes me as irrational. Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim of a God. Nothing more. It is not a philosophy, a way of life, a creed. We all should be focusing on a philosophy of living. and it should be soundly based in reason and logic. I'd say, in my opinion, but I think it's more important than that. Great post. It's unusual for a newbie to create such good discussion right off the bat. I'm enjoying it. :)