"Your definitions are false."

For whatever reason, definitions continue to be the hill you go to die on. You might want to rethink that Mr. Custer, as the Indians are circling. See (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/f...) I am using definition #1. I also like #6 from the New World definitions. I refuse to limit faith to #4 as you seem to. Those were the most restrictive definitions I could find. Merriam-Webster's were far more accurate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...)

Faith is seeing a door and having enough hope in the future to open it. Faith is deciding that something good can happen to you so you get out of bed in the morning. The only people who are devoid of faith are those who commit suicide because they can see no positive outcome for them in the future. Humanity is replete with faith of many varieties, not just the religious ones.

The concept of blind faith is an oxymoron. Even the #2 definition doesn't go there. It does talk pretty specifically about experiments, however - which non-coincidentally was exactly how I used it - the motivation to test a hypothesis.

"Objective thinking does not require omniscience. Objectivity simply requires adherence to reality and reason and to be consistent with known knowledge."

Agreed. My only point was a reminder that ignorance should never be overlooked or taken out of the picture entirely. That is where arrogance begins and possibilities get discarded not on lack of merit but on prejudice. It is the realization that Objectivism seldom acknowledges its own Achilles' Heel.

If you really want to go into altruism, we've already covered this one ad nauseum in this thread (http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/32...). If you want to go into it again, I'll humor you by repeating the same statements I made there: Christianity doesn't support mooching. It never has and never will.

BTW - no one on this forum cares how old someone is or how long someone claims to have been an Objectivist. Ideas and respectful conversation are the currency here in the Gulch - even in disagreement. You want to give me something to think about, great, do so. But don't disagree just to be disagreeable. Any idiot Progressive or six-year-old can do that. Any my six-year-old has better manners.

You think I don't understand AR's point of view? You're welcome to your misconceptions and welcome to explain to me how you interpret Rand's philosophies. Condescending statements, however, are the desperate ploy of those without enough confidence in their own stance to be able to withstand the heat of others' opinions.

I tried replacing the word Christian with atheist in my statement and it didn't make much sense. I haven't heard of one group of atheists telling another that they aren't really atheists. There are few ways to misinterpret atheism.

So I don't think the same thing can be said about atheists.

You are however correct that there are mean atheists and nice atheists, and the same can be said about Christians. But Christianity and atheism aren't what makes someone a good guy or a bad guy.

The point I was trying to make, is you don't see bad atheists commit "sins" in the name of atheism.

What's the unanswered query?

Emotional responses don't add benefit.
I never implied "dictate"; I merely asked that you and others look at the context here - AR movie et al.

So you are accepting force? Does the fact that it exists say it must be accepted? It certainly is not inherent - that's absurd.

I expect others not to initiate force because it is not inherent and is not in his best interest. If one does, I expect government to protect my rights - that is govt.'s role.

again, from Rand: let's define our terms so that we know what we are talking about.

as in "don't try to push me around! no matter how good you feel [word used with intent] your reasons are!"

Where did I say I rely on others? That's the altruist code.
And history is only replete with evidence of facts, not faith.
Why would you suggest the use of force - again?
How does so much talk of force and religion even belong in a forum titled "Galt's Gulch?"

There is always harm done to the self when not adhering to reason. I can't even begin to assume you could be right without any evidence to suggest it.

The incentive is virtue: how can I stand on the principle of rights if I don't respect the rights of others? Man's nature is such that he requires rational actions to survive; rights are rights to such actions.
Where's the quick-sand?

There was no name-calling here.
I was simply implying that if you agree with AR fundamentally, you would not believe. If you don't, then you would not likely consider her a genius since it is her philosophical contributions that made her so.

You said that, not 'epistemology'.
But no one has objectively shown AR to be wrong in this discussion.

Do you want to be more specifc?

Your definitions are false.
Reason employs logic; it is man's only means of grasping reality and acquiring knowledge.
Faith is blind acceptance based on feelings in the absence of evidence or proof.
Necessarily, blind faith has no foundation.

The "faith" you refer to with inventors is not the faith anyone is talking about.
Altruism is self-sacrifice - the morality of religion. You don't understand AR's objection.

Objective thinking does not require omniscience. Objectivity simply requires adherence to reality and reason and to be consistent with known knowledge.

BTW: being new to this thread does not mean I am new to concepts. I have been an Objectivist for more years than you have likely lived. It behooves you to read and understand AR.