Scale Everyone ME
Cantril Ladder 68.1 70.0
Satisfaction With Life 64.5 82.5
Psychological Well-Being 69.6 75.0
Health 65.0 62.5
Time Balance 50.6 75.0
Lifelong Learning, Arts & Culture 68.3 37.5
Community 51.6 53.6
Social Support 69.9 43.8
Environment 66.6 56.3
1 / 2 Government 50.5 25.0
Standard of Living - Economy 65.6 93.8
Work 59.4 70.8

I was thinking more broadly. If we don't know definitively how the universe began for example why not just say we don't know.

I am open to learning.

I will say I am a student of Objectivism and incorporate it into my everyday life. And, interestingly enough, interaction with Objectivists in the Gulch makes me very happy!

First problem I say with the study-atheists ARE NOT a coherent group. they are all over the map, philosophically, ethically. it sucks as a category.

I do not think of it as something to "not know about". but more important to the question-you don't wake up one day and decide you are a an Objectivist. like what-baptism? It is a philosophy you study, are a student of. That's all. If you agree the philosophy makes sense to you and you can incorporate objective reason into your life and your choices, I guess over time you say I am an O, like you would say, I'm Aristotelian.

Not quite sure what deciding "to become an Objectivist" means.... Do people that learn Addition do so to become mathematicians? Is learning and integrating any knowledge about existence deciding to become something, or just gaining a better understanding of things? (No sarcasm intended)

Live your life and continue to learn all you can about what is. We're human...let's be that.

I am an atheist in this forum and did not downvote you. Ayn Rand did not invent her own definition of atheism, her formulation is a fairly widespread one: “There is no evidence of a creator, so there is no reason for me to believe in one, so I don’t.” If there is a cause for everything that exists, then if God exists there must be a cause for (him,her,it); and if a cause for God exists, then there must be a cause for that cause, etc. It’s an infinite regress. Existence must logically precede causation; without existence, no causation is possible.

I have always thought that it is best to say "I don't know" when we don't know. Makes us ask questions and seek more information. Helps us grow intellectually.

Thank you for answering. So for you to "become an Objectivist" you would have to become an atheist. I can understand why an Objectivist would feel that a person proselytizing for a particular religion would be out of place in the Gulch. My thought about the origin of reality is "I don't know". I can't call myself an atheist, but I've never been down voted for that. Not yet.

I agree completely, rich.

First of all, I did not use the term "belief", and with good reason. I prefer the term "worldview". It is based on a combination of empirical observation and logic, and consequently is far more objective. On this point, I think there will be no disagreement within the Gulch. The term "beliefs" should be considered a pejorative in the Gulch, just like faith is.

My biggest problem with Objectivism, however, is with regard to how Rand redefined atheism very cleverly such that she had no burden of proof. While I know that most in this forum will disagree with me on the following point, I consider that an avoidance (a form of blanking out) of one of, if not the, most important philosophical question, "From whence have we come?" I find it completely illogical to see that there is a cause for everything else in existence, yet not ask how such existence came into being. It is far easier for me to conclude that a being of superior intelligence and power is responsible for the universe than it is to not conclude that. I can agree that since the big bang that existence exists, but the cause for the big bang effect remains elusive. Until proven otherwise, atheism as defined by non-Objectivists requires more faith than anyone should have. Arriving at agnosticism as a conclusion until further knowledge is obtained is valid (at least temporarily). I think that Rand's conclusion in favor of atheism via inventing her own definition was a copout, and I fully expect to be downvoted accordingly by the atheists in this forum.

Good luck Jb. My feeling is that happy and sad people exist everywhere. It seems like collectivist thinking to try and prove one "group" is happier than another.

This thread is an exercise in checking my own premises, but I have not determined yet which one of them is wrong.

Jbrenner, I am intrigued by your statement "if I did decide to become an Objectivist". What would this entail? A change in your beliefs? Is it possible to change a belief by making a choice? I can see changing my actions through choice, but a belief? I can see changing a belief through learning new facts and/or thinking about the facts, but just deciding to believe differently doesn't seem rational to me. Could you please expand on your comment? Thanks

Sounds like it. I should have left this in the notes at the end.

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

One of the things that intrigued me when I heard about this study from a friend yesterday was something you observed as well: "Happiness is so subjective". Trying to quantify happiness is an attempt to make it more objective. Did I stumble quite by accident upon a contradiction in Objectivist philosophy?

Interesting. I took the test and it told me to put down any sharp objects and call a sponsor. Happiness is so subjective and fluid I am always skeptical of tests that claim to be able to quantify it. It was intriguing to see how I compared to others. I left my e-mail so I can continue to follow this.