About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

Your lengthy answer did not satisfy me. If  God is not a creation of your own mind; how do you define the source of this notion?  The short answer, please. I have more questions.

Post 61

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I completely agree with George as far as having discussions about the existence of God. That is why I wasn't doing it. Oddly enough, that was being pushed forward from elsewhere. Arguing about the existence of God is just as foolish as, say, trying to convert someone into or out of something. On the other hand, I think its pretty interesting that people call for purges for the sake of maintaining purity. It all sounds kind of Arian Youth.
 
In regards to the irrationality of mysticism, Objectivism is most definitly a ‘closed system’ on this topic.
 
For sure.And,  Objectivism also has never demonstrated any comprehensive abilities in understanding, discussing, or defining mysticism beyond using the word "supernatural" over and over again. Anyone that has done any heavy work in that area sees it straight out, just like you can see fallacies in debates. And it is not burdened to display any facility with it.  It is the same case with religion- the lack of knowledge displayed in that area outs people. And, that's what one would expect. Objectivism likely thinks the Dali Llama is irrational, evasive, and/or psychologically traumatized.

Objectivism is wrong about things, on occasion. That is difficult for it. The bigger problem for Objectivism lies in its uneven social skills. Objectivism is going to have trouble partnering with people when it might want to.  

When you talk about religion, otherwise careful Objectivists have wheeled out straw men that they honest to heck are convinced represent "God," which is a really complicated freaking word. A lot of compartmentalization, and over-simplification of abstract concepts goes on when some Objectivists talk about religion- it seems to bring terrible things out of them. That's a fact- the behavior shows it- some of them lose their composure and start getting pretty hostile and anti-social.

That, to me, appears to be very far from clear and calm-minded awareness. But, no system, philosophy or religion is capable of providing that 24/7. Life does not work that way.
 





Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

George said “the God/atheism debate is perhaps the single worse starting point for an objectivist seeking to influence the culture.”

 

On the other hand, isn’t atheism one of the main reasons that lead people to Objectivism and Rand? What other philosophical system that is so fully consistent with the atheistic view of the world? Excluding Communism, of course!



Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Rich, as to your observations about social skills and approach of Objectivist towards theist – I agree with you on many points.

 

Over 90% of humanity adheres to some form of mysticism, and for the most part (especially in the western world) this not the result of trauma or irrationality. For the most part it is merely the outgrowth of cultural and traditional norms that developed over time from the more primitive and simplistic types of philosophies we now call religions. In dealing with a person of this background one must take this context in mind, and judge accordingly.

 

Furthermore, the influencing of a culture does not entail the creation of a utopian objectivist state; these are the ramblings of the kook fringe of Objectivism. Cultures are changed incrementally, and success and failure are properly measured by degrees, not either-or total victories or defeats. However, there is an enormous difference between being tolerant and understanding of non-Objectivist that adhere to a mild form of mysticism, and those that call themselves Objectivist or cloak themselves in objectivist jargon and still maintain the validity of theism. What is not evasion and irrationality in the context of most people within the culture at large; is most definitely evasion/irrationality within the Objectivist community itself.

 

A novice Objectivist from a religious background may go through an Objecti-Theist stage. This is common, and should be expected. But the operative word here is “stage”. The first time he broke down and understood the fundamentals (starting with existence-exist, this automatically points towards certain conclusions), he had already intellectually dispensed with the concept ‘God’, he had no choice. All that remained was to release the psychological dependency on the concept. However, at the point that this “stage” becomes a permanent state of affairs, and the person attempts to re-invent Objectivism to suit his own personal agenda, it is at this point that patience and ‘kid gloves’ should go out the window when dealing with such a person.

 

The reasons for this should be obvious; in regards to theism - a mixed-premised Objectivism is a contradiction in terms. In fact, I believe there was once an Objecti-Theist Catholic that posted on Solo. Imagine the impact of such entities being taken even remotely seriously within Objectivism.

 

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 7/13, 4:19pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 64

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong said: On the other hand, isn’t atheism one of the main reasons that lead people to Objectivism and Rand?
 
Yes, very true. But in this case you have an atheist that is seeking out a philsophical grounding to hs life, which atheism alone cannot possibly provide. This is far different from an Objectivist reaching out to another person that is not already an atheist. In this case using atheism as a starting point will usually lead to negative results. 
 
Then you said: What other philosophical system that is so fully consistent with the atheistic view of the world?
 
Objectivism is not consistent with an atheistic veiw of the world, it is consistent with an objective view of the world. The atheism is merely a corallory conclusion that one, by logic, must derive from the former. Atheism is consistent within Objectivism, outside of Objectivism - it leads to an intellectual and moral vacuum.
 
George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 7/13, 4:05pm)


Post 65

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

RE: Post 30 You wrote,

“I see no possible way of grounding the statement you cited.”

That may be true, but you just change the subject. My reference to Aquinas was merely to indicate one conception of God that is not affected by your “information” objection. I didn’t mean to imply that his notion could withstand all possible objections.

Fred


Post 66

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

You wrote,

"but if He is all-powerful, then he can change the future."

Aquinas actually discusses this possibility albeit with respect to the past. He says that the concept of omnipotence does not imply that God can violate the law of contradiction. He can do anything that does not imply a contradiction.
Aquinas writes, "Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent; but whatever implies contradiciton does not come with the scope of divide omnipotence, , because it cannot have the aspect of possibility." (ST, I, 25, 3)

Fred

Post 67

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
George, I especially liked this quote of yours:
Atheism is consistent within Objectivism, outside of Objectivism - it leads to an intellectual and moral vacuum.
Ed


Post 68

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

George,

Yes, you are of course right in that atheism is only one aspect of a person’s world view. You posts reminded me of your previous article (Atheism: A Question of Conscience) about the nature of atheism. Perhaps those who hasn’t read it but is interested in the topic should look it up.

 

I think, for “scientific” atheists, the Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology come quite naturally, although they may not have such predisposition toward the ethics and politics of Objectivism. On the other hand, I agree with you and many others in this thread that theism is just not compatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology.

 

“Atheism…outside of Objectivism - it leads to an intellectual and moral vacuum.”

 

So you think Objectivism is THE only one then. J

 

Hong


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong said: So you think Objectivism is THE only one then. J
 
No, not the only one, but certainly the best one. ;-)

George


Post 70

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah. First of all, take a deep breath. Second, I recommend 750 mg. of quetiapine to be taken 3 times daily as well as 1 mg. of trandolapril taken once daily (preferably with meals). Alrighty then!
Rich, your posts are very insightful and appreciated.

Post 71

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik,

Schizophrenia eh? Let's see... hallucinations, hearing voices, a feeling that one's thoughts or actions are under someone else's control. Are you sure I need quetiapine?

Sarah

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick Engle wrote:
 " I am one of those people that had what surely can be called a series of mystical experiences, and it left me forever changed on a very deep level. It had nothing to do with smoke, mirrors, apparitions, or any kind of pathology or psychological episode. All I will say about it is that it profoundly changed how I connect to existence, and how it works on the whole is better, for me, and anyone I come in contact with. If you wish to question my rationality, or general sanity, or question my ability to operate in society, I cannot control that behavior, only my own. There are many types of conversions, and I question your knowledge of what conversion is, its overall range, and the various situations under which it occurs. "

Rick, 
you're a  human being and have the same responsibility when attempting to convince the  rest of us.   You think you have had a experience with "God", or a connection with a supernatural realm, but, how can you dismiss natural causes for what you have experienced? Your jump to a supernatural cause is just an appeal to ignorance.


Post 73

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 9:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah. Actually, now that I think about it, I would say that you need trandolapril a lot more than you need quetiapine. Oh yeah, and a big piece of tape over your unlady-like mouth. But, I'm rather bored with you, so this will be my last reaction to anything you will say from here on.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 10:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Erik, what has Sarah said that is "unlady-like", or deserving of her mouth being taped shut? Its ridiculous that you throw your own punches (Post 70) and then cry about her replies. It seems to me that you are just making flame-bait, and then walking off on airs.

(through->throw)
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 7/14, 4:47am)


Post 75

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 1:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
May I recommend the Easter Bunny?

He is such a comfort in times of stress. He will lead you to still waters and make you lie down in green pastures.

Warning!!!

Do not, DO NOT be misled by that false provider of comfort, he who provides nothing at all, the insidious Santa and his faithful flock of hapless reindeer.

Michael



Post 76

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Easter bunny is so obviously a false prophet. Here is an excellent debunking page : http://www.abcteach.com/Reading/comps/573.pdf#search='rabbits%20lay%20eggs'

Allow me to quote one of my favorite poassages which I challenge you to disprove : "But, a bunny can't lay eggs!"

I was somewhat disheartened by Rich's response to my post, I had thought he would give my views on Santa the same respect he is asking others to give him. Why the double standard? The rapture is near, Santa Claus is coming to town!


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 77

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Christensen,

"Oh yeah, and a big piece of tape over your unlady-like mouth."

I think you need to up the dose of whichever of those drugs you take.

Post 78

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't imagine how talk of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus could contribute to the growth and understanding necessary for Erik and Rich to set aside their perceptions of what they have experienced.

My own experiences have been resolved by an acceptance of myself as the absolute final authority.  For those, who in childhood, had authoritarian religions imposed on them; this takes a great leap of faith.  Confidence in one's intellectual and moral self is prime; and making jokes about these other's gropings towards a different reality is counter-productive.

I don't understand differential  calculus; should that bring ridicule and shame down upon my head?

Sharon

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sharon,

Rich is a is big boy and can take care of himself. I even empathise with a great deal of what he says, albeit from a very different perspective. I suspect that I have had many similar experiences to him.

Mr. Erik Christian Christensen however, is showing a different side of what faith can do. I learned to respect the fairer sex in my own atheistic manner. He has learned nothing of these things from his religion - see his assholish posts to Sarah. I hold absolute contempt for that. I will have none of that kind of brotherly love. Shame on him. (I'm not joking - I mean it. Shame on him.)

Now back to the larger, more important issue at hand. Unfortunately Sylvester Sourpuss isn't even in the running - sorry. Good try though.

Both the insidious Santa and the all-wonderful Easter Bunny have holidays celebrated in their name (though I have no idea how that fat windbag pulled that one off - "Ho ho ho" doesn't go very far as enlightenment.)

Besides, there is now a malicious rumor going around that the Easter Bunny does not perform his standard miracle of laying eggs. THIS INSANITY HAS TO STOP!

Down with Santa.

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.