If you have never read Plato's "Republic", it's an excellent read and one of the classic philosophical treatises in history. In it, Plato covers his "ideal" society based on three castes (you will probably disagree with it), but he also debunks the notion of the Greek Pantheon.

Another of my personal favorites is CS Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" where he goes into the origin and meaning of pain and its philosophical meanings.

some of the theist philosophers you mention, including Locke, had no choice during the time they were writing. so we cannot be sure they actually were theists.

"You don't get it: you can't prove a negative."

You are correct in that a negative can't be proven, but I am not asserting a negative. It is your line of reasoning which does so. In so doing, you are violating the fundamental basis of the scientific process of logical inquiry. You should be positing the existence and then looking for confirmation.

"you are using "evidence" that you see and I can't - not evidence."

If I have a telescope and tell you that I can detect a comet out past the rings of Saturn, does your lack of a telescope mean that the comet does not exist? Are you going to deny my observation simply because you don't have your own telescope yet or are you going to ask how to get your own telescope so you can independently confirm my observation? Or you could just complain about your lack of a telescope - I suppose that's another possibility.

The basis of any rational conversation must start with a foundation of possibilities and an exploration of such. The "what if" scenario is the basis for all scientific discovery and all truth. What you should be asking yourself is this: if I am truly looking for truth, why am I so opposed to the exploration of a concept that I can't scientifically prove is impossible? The only answer is because that decision in and of itself is based on emotion rather than logic. It is founded on fear - not reason. When you can come to grips with this reality, you will be able to begin to build your own telescope. Until then, I'll let you go by telling you that the view is fantastic and you really should take a look.

1 - So you are the one who gets to define reality? Wow. You have set yourself up as god. If that doesn't strike you as even the smallest bit of ironic contradiction, I can see why you refuse to listen to anyone else's viewpoint.

I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. It's not the way it works and it would be completely pointless. The whole point is to introduce a way of living that leads to greater things. You haven't indicated that you are interested, therefore I'm not going to waste my time telling you what you are missing out on.

2 - You're going to have to define what you mean by altruism, because I've seen it misapplied to Christianity far more than I've seen it correctly used. Rand's use of altruism is mooching - that's not any part of Christianity.

3 - You again circle back around to your claim that I can't prove what I believe in, when you can't substantiate your OWN point and when you aren't even interested in listening to my point of view. Talk about a kangaroo court.

Again, either substantiate your points with logic and reason, or concede that you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

And yes, I have actually read cover-to-cover and in its entirety "Atlas Shrugged". I can give you both a literary and philosophical critique if you wish. I also own both movies in special edition, as well as having watched several YouTube videos of interviews with Ayn Rand. I have not yet made the time for "The Fountainhead" as I'm currently working on Brandon Sanderson's "Words of Radiance" (a fantasy novel). You?

To Blarman:
"I think you've got that backwards. In order to be able to prove something does not exist, you first must quantify exactly what it is you are seeking to confirm or deny."
You don't get it: you can't prove a negative.
You want a C vs Obj. difference? Definitions! E.g. of what constitutes 'proof'.
And subjectivism vs objectivism.

"You have already determined in your mind to reject any evidence or concept I would give you. Without an open mind, you are going to do nothing but dismiss what I have to say. I can assure you that everything I know can be arrived at rationally - but you have to make up your mind to entertain the possibility first."
Same difference. You entertain a "god", then you "see" evidence others can't see, then you believe. I see no evidence, thus don't entertain.

"Why should I question my faith when I have personal evidence of its truth? That would be like a judge dismissing the evidence and testimony of the witnesses simply because of the charms of one of the lawyers. And you want me to base my decisions on reason? Or is it really just reason as you define it?"
What does "evidence" mean? Your analogy is invalid: in your case, you are using "evidence" that you see and I can't - not evidence.

Conclusion: it is impossible to "have a reasoned conversation with you." So this conversation should terminate.

I will answer this, but the margins are getting ridiculous. I will submit a new post at the bottom.

1. What you "see" is not what "is". But you can make an attempt to prove a God if you wish.

2. All religion holds an altruistic morality. If you don't, then you are not truly a C.

3. I deal with reality; you deal with mysticism.
As a student of philosophy, I never decide anything for convenience. In Obj. phil, nothing can be considered real until there is evidence to support it.

You're in the Gulch; but have you actually read Atlas Shrugged? Integrated what AR says?
If you say yes, then you are the one who is dismissing most of her fundamentals for convenience/rationalization.

"One cannot prove a negative; I don't need evidence of something non-existent."

I think you've got that backwards. In order to be able to prove something does not exist, you first must quantify exactly what it is you are seeking to confirm or deny.

"You have to provide the evidence of a God; and no one has ever been able to do that rationally."

You have already determined in your mind to reject any evidence or concept I would give you. Without an open mind, you are going to do nothing but dismiss what I have to say. I can assure you that everything I know can be arrived at rationally - but you have to make up your mind to entertain the possibility first.

"They simply do not grasp the fundamentals enough to begin to question their faith."

Why should I question my faith when I have personal evidence of its truth? That would be like a judge dismissing the evidence and testimony of the witnesses simply because of the charms of one of the lawyers. And you want me to base my decisions on reason? Or is it really just reason as you define it?

If you want to have a reasoned discussion with me, do so. All I have heard so far are empty claims without merit or foundation. If you want to prove to me that I can't know what I know, please proceed. Any parrot can repeat the same thing over and over again. Are you an independent, thinking, rationale being - or just a parrot?

Wow, three more concepts based on someone else's definition of Christianity rather than my own. Good grief. Instead of trying to tell me what I believe and why, why not just ASK?

#1. Why is the concept of God untenable? You keep making the claim, yet you have nothing to back it up but your own belief. You would have mankind arise from the void and return to the void. I see an origin that didn't start with birth and doesn't end with death.

#2. BS. Please tell me what about my own faith precludes me from being a capitalist? Am I going to be an Objectivist after Ayn Rand's atheist philosophies? No. But your own ignorance of Christianity is so obvious that it is painful.

3. Again, you are trying to define reason to exclude spirituality for no other reason than you don't want to deal with it. An honest seeker of truth will carefully weigh an argument before coming to judgment. You've just decided that it isn't convenient for you and that by extension it can't be a possibility. That's the definition of bias and prejudice.

Please. Tell me how Christianity is metaphysically untenable. Tell me how I can not be a capitalist. Tell me how I can not be reasonable. So far all I've seen are repeated statements of ignorance and blatant pretense. You present no foundation for your arguments. I expect this from the talking heads in the media, but I have higher expectations here in the Gulch. Either defend your argument or retract it.

Again, I refer you to the dictionary definitions for faith. And I'm afraid that neither Plato nor Socrates agree with the limited definition you are attempting to exclusively employ. In Plato's "Republic", he lays out the absurdity of the Greek Pantheon because of their caprice, but reasons that a single God of law and order could very well exist. Immanuel Kant is one of the biggest proponents of universal law and sides with the theists. I have already mentioned CS Lewis. St. Thomas Aquinas was a leader in the derivation of good/evil. All these are well-reknowned philosophers straight out of my Philosophy 101 manual who reject this proposed "philosophical" definition of faith as being antithetical to reason. Indeed, no person of faith accepts that definition which is inherently an oxymoron on the scale of "government intelligence". If it weren't so exasperating, I might find it ironic for someone who professes no belief to presume to define a word he denied in the first place!

Please understand that I fully support atheists in their right NOT to believe. I support their rights to evangelize (another Christian word) if they so choose. But please don't belittle my intelligence and reason by telling me that my belief is absurd simply because you don't want it to be true. To me, to presume that you can know without a doubt that no God exists without the benefit of personal omniscience strikes me as the kind of hubris a true Objectivist would shun. If the search for truth as advocated by Ayn Rand is the glory of the Objectivist, wouldn't it be a wiser course to acknowledge what one doesn't know in the absence of proof rather than allowing one's prejudices to wall off marvelous possibilities?

I just saw this one so will add:
1. It is always unreasonable to believe in something that is metaphysically and Epistemologically untenable.
2. A Christian cannot be a capitalist; thus he cannot fully agree on economic principles. The moralities are totally different.
3. Yes, a Christian can accept reason in some areas of his life, but clearly not all.

You are not showing an understanding of phiilosophy.
One cannot prove a negative; I don't need evidence of something non-existent. You have to provide the evidence of a God; and no one has ever been able to do that rationally.
You simply cannot "know better."

That's only one of the areas where Obj. and Christianity are in conflict. And there is no prejudice in saying that: reason shows that.

As I have said, emotions almost always prevent Christians from understanding and accepting Obj. philosophy. They simply do not grasp the fundamentals enough to begin to question their faith.

"partly because of the contradiction between religious faith (not the pseudo-faith you have been talking about) and reason."

Again, you keep inventing a contradiction that doesn't exist. There is nothing unreasonable about believing in God and I challenge you to back up your claim.

Is a Christian going to agree with Rand's economic principles? Absolutely. Are they going to agree with Rand's atheism? No, of course not. I even point this out in my analysis of the article. But to say that a Christian can't believe in reason is patently absurd.

You have no evidence other than your own belief. You can not prove that God does not exist because in order to do so, you would have to be God-like! I only have to point to man's own ignorance to say that to preclude the possibility of God is one of the most prejudicial and arrogant statements one can make. You can choose not to believe if you wish, but please don't tell me He doesn't exist because I know better.

I'm more than willing to have an open discussion about how Objectivism and Christianity are actually a lot closer than one might think, but it is predicated on the recipient entering the discussion without the prejudices you exhibit. You fall into the same fatal conceit that Rand did - basing all your objections on your own desire for God not to exist - not because reason dictates such.

Actually, both. You were quite eloquent as well, j_JR1776wg. I think I had read quite a bit of what both of you had written. Overall, this thread has been a fascinating read. With apologies for not acknowledging your contribution. And yes, the post was misplaced. Sorry. I guess my cold is starting to get to me more than I would care to admit.

Curious question jbrenner. Did you mean Eloquent j_IR1776wg? Or was your post misplaced?

Eloquent, blarman, on the merits of capitalism. I just would prefer that we use the term "free enterprise". Not only is free enterprise a terminology more consistent with Galt, but Marx and Engels used capitalism as a term of derision. This is a great example of how we have become so accustomed to moochers' language that we don't even realize how it has reshaped the debate.