STOP!
Stop all the bible thumping in the Gulch. This site is to promote Objectivism and Ayn Rand, not a Sunday pulpit. It is your choice to believe/have faith in the supernatural. It is my choice not to. You aren't changing my mind and I'm not changing yours. Let us agree that you CANNOT be an Objectivist and believe in a deity. You may agree with many of the aspects of Objectivism, which is a good thing. Let us move on from this subject. I'm going to start using the 'marked as read' feature just to hide all the religious comments.
I maintain, as did Jefferson "... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." However, regardless of my personal beliefs, this is a site dedicated to objectivism and thumping the Bible on the heads of those that do not believe when the only evidence of one's belief is faith without empirical evidence is bound to ruffle feathers. It is probably best for the sake of comity if we avoid the subject unless God performs a demonstrable miracle that can be recorded and demonstrated empirically. If it were substantial and demonstrable, that would force Objectivsts to re-examine their positions as it may no longer be in the realm of arbitrary. On the other hand I do not see how objectivists are harmed by believers that practice objectivist principles in this temporal existence so long as they recognize they will also not persuade objectivists without empirical evidence and should let it be. It has been abundantly clear that the true believers are not persuaded by the argument that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss their faith, though to objectivists faith is arbitrary and thus not fact. People will decide one way or the other in their own time.
I know that years of investigating the best arguments and arguing this issue have, for me, produced no irrefutable evidence. I remain open to evidence, but until confronted with something that could not be explained as a result of the law of causality, I have no opinion I can substantiate to others. It is arbitrary; Therefore not objectivist.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Jefferson is half right. He is completely right in the sphere of politics and in no case should that ever be forgotten. But when reason is abandoned in science we end up with AGW and the AGW advocates will argue that you are doing more than breaking their legs and picking their pockets, you are destroying the world.
True freedom cannot be maintained by any ethical or epistemology system and certainly not by the christian version of these. You cannot build a house or rocket or an MRI or the greatest country in history on a foundation of quicksand. So these issues are important. But I will no more listen to CG spread lies and ignore reality than I will listen to the regionists. I will point out that I disagree vehemently with them and that they are not allowed to spread their lies on this site.
I completely understand. Faith is not science.
I respect your wish to engage, your stamina and your adherence to your convictions.. I hope you are not discouraged by the progress you make.
Perhaps you will even convert a few.
Regards,
O.A.
Actually, I was just realizing yesterday... I just have no idea how to create a post. Guess I'll have to figure it out. But it's been such a good excuse so far.
Edit; clarity
I understand and do not blame you for the ruckus. You need no one's sanction to post what you wish. Some just take things too personally... the frequency of these discussions devolving into food fights just seems to be increasing. You as the producer of the thread should do as you see fit. When things get too heated I just move along... recognizing a sense of futility.
Best wishes,
O.A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxoVRTw...
Me too.
Regards,
O.A.
Metaphysics A=A or A is what god says it is right now
Epistemology Reason (logic and evidence) vs. revealed truth
Ethics Rational self interest vs Altruism.
But try to pin them down on these realities and they shift like the sand. Not to mention their inane attempts to show the United States was found on christianity. It was not. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights. Christians can take credit for the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, thousands of religious wars, poverty and ignorance.. However, since it was not revealed to be so in their stupid book, no amount of evidence will convince them of this.
I will never understand this. I am not an atheist, and I accept that to be 100% Objectivist I would need to be atheist, because the principles of Objectivism do not include faith in anything without rational proof. But I am 100% engaged in the Gulch, and even believe if there is ever a real physical Gulch I will be a valued member.
My point is that it's not the atheists who seem to keep injecting this argument into the discussion. Why can't the religionists keep religion out of the Gulch?
I agree with RMP's request to refrain from arguing about religion because no one will have a satisfactory engagement. I think that there are a plethora of other sites on which to discuss religion and it's application to whatever the commenter thinks its value is. From an objective point of view, it just comes across as an irrational belief in an entity for which there is no proof. On that note, I will close. I enjoy the discourse here with many, but religion is something I will leave out of it.
Respectfully,
NMA
Interesting statement.
Count me in on your alien comments... I am too a proponent... like jump started by alien DNA in the course of evolution...
Religious person: I believe in a god, but it only informs applies to spiritual and values issues. This spiritual view directs me toward using reason to understand the world and accept Objectivism.
Atheist: By believing in gods, you're doing something irrational, contrary to Objectivism.
Religious person: My religion is based on faith. It can't be irrational or rational. Those apply only to the real world, which I approach rationally. Religion concerns itself with values and spirit.
Atheist: The very notion of "spirit" is irrational. Values should not rest stuff someone made up.
If the religious person says religion has no effect whatsoever on anything in the real world, then I don't see a problem with it or any reason even to discuss it at all. As rockymountainpirate says, just move on.
If they're saying religion is the foundation of their value system, values that affect how they interact with the real world, there's a reason to talk about it. Some people more knowledgeable about philosophy than I am have said values rest on reason, or something like that. I'm philosophically unsophisticated, so it feels to me like my values came from my parents and culture. That's an arbitrary source, so I can see a person from a religious background saying religion informs their values.
Is there a non-fiction book by Rand or anyone that addresses the question of the source of our values?