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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aw, bullshit.
However, the world would surely be a better place without "Salon" and Mr. Dawkins.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One would think that the vicious, dime-store equivalency Bushitler-Bushladen comparisons would be getting scarcer nowadays, if for no other reason than old age.

But as we all know, there is a delusional world within this world. It is all too real and inhabited by a combination of pacifist "libertarians" and hard leftists -- the products of whose inter-breeding are becoming evermore retarded.

Alec  


Post 2

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 2:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion.
So the appropriate action would be to reason with Bin Laden?  Gee, why didn't I think of that?
Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven.
This may actually be true, but so what? Bush is fighting on our side. Sure, keep an eye on him given his dodgy beliefs, but as long as he is doing the right thing there is no reason to complain.
This world would be a much better place without either of them.
Typical lefty wishful thinking. Fortunately, Bush doesn't sit around simply wishing Bin Laden didn't exist.  That's for those on the side of "reason" and "discussion".


Post 3

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dammit!,
                 I have just stood up for Dawkins and now he goes and mouths off like this. Think I will have to found a "British Athiests for Bush" movement. Any takers? roll up roll up.


Post 4

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw Richard Dawkins speak at the Atheist Alliance International Convention in 2003.  He impressed me as a highly intelligent and articulate man.  He never made remarks like this one that I recall.  It is a shame that he remains conceptually dyslexic in the field of politics.  Unfortunately, this condition afflicts many in the secular movement.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 5:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Knapp, editor of the posts on the libertarian news site Freedom News Daily, has chewed up many electrons here disputing the negative opinions some of us have about anarcho-libertarians. And yet he keeps providing us with more footnotes, such as posting this outrageous "moral equivalency" quotation.

I am an atheist. I know the dangers of blind faith. But I am also fair and honest enough to discriminate between individuals who mistakenly ground their otherwise decent lives by reference to religious concepts, and individuals who appropriate religious concepts as excuses for sociopathic butchery.

Many, many millions of religious people don't believe it is moral to deliberately target innocent civilians for mass murder. They don't believe in commandeering civilian airliners, slashing the throats of flight attendants, then flying them into civilian office buildings -- or cheering those who do. They don't believe in planting bombs in cars and setting them off in civilian marketplaces, hoping to maximize casualties among innocent shoppers and their children. They don't believe in deliberately targeting Olympic athletes, kids dancing in discos, cruise ship passengers, school buses loaded with children or liberated people in Baghdad lining up to vote for the first time. They don't believe in kidnapping civilians, forcing them to read extorted videotaped "confessions," then sawing off their heads with butcher knives. They don't believe in conducting a global war of extermination, which they call jihad, against all competing religious groups.

Millions of religious people don't find any of this sort of thing to be either rational or moral. In fact, they are morally outraged by it, and are willing to use force -- including joining the military, and risking their own necks -- to stop the butchers.

President Bush is among them.

But apparently Mr. Knapp and some of his anarcho-ilk find such differences between the supporters of President Bush and Osama bin Laden to be intellectually petty and morally irrelevant. 

It is equally apparent that it is Bush and American people, not Osama and his terrorists, who are the target of Knapp's unconscionable smear.

Ask yourself who is truly farthest removed from reality and morality: the vast majority of decent and reasonable people, like President Bush, who also happen to be religious -- or Mr. Knapp, whose anarcho-epistemology can't help him distinguish between a church-goer and a car bomber.

P. S. [added as an edit]:  It just occurred to me that Mr. Knapp may reply that he is just innocently putting up this quotation without comment, for our consideration, and not necessarily endorsing its content. Let me pre-emptively deal with that possibility by inviting you to click here, and draw your own conclusions.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 5/01, 6:50am)


Post 6

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bravo, Robert. Another example of why people should be judged by their actions not necessarily their ideas. The intellectual tendency to telescope from ideas to implications of those ideas ignores the fact that most Americans view religious faith as a personal matter, to be used to resolve inner conflicts not those out in the world.

Jim


Post 7

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For the best commentary on the basic goodness and decency of most of the American people religious or not, I always refer to Robert Heinlein: http://www.heinleinprize.com/rah/thisibelieve.htm

Jim


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim says,

Bravo, Robert. Another example of why people should be judged by their actions not necessarily their ideas. The intellectual tendency to telescope from ideas to implications of those ideas ignores the fact that most Americans view religious faith as a personal matter, to be used to resolve inner conflicts not those out in the world.
Whoa there, pony. We already knew from Bush's ideas  and from Bin Laden's ideas what kind of men they were -- the extent to which each is consumed by his irrationality and in what areas of his mysticism each puts the most emphasis. If we had talked candidly with each man about his ideas before we knew each man publicly, we would have known how to assess him; we wouldn't have to wait for the actions for confirmation. In fact his later actions would simply make us nod our head in confirmation.

Actions can give us more insight into how much a person believes what he is saying and will act on it -- whether he's got a dichotomy or not. It can give us more insight into character. But we don't need the actions to evaluate (judge) the ideas.

Dawkins (whose books on genetics I've loved) unfortunately has proved himself just another in a long line of scientists who place dice with rationality.

Btw, if Clinton had been the kind of man who took ideas and judgment seriously in the mid-'90s, then when he received the intelligence on Bin Laden ideas and threats, he would've taken Bin Laden out.


 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert wrote:

I know the dangers of blind faith. But I am also fair and honest enough to discriminate between individuals who mistakenly ground their otherwise decent lives by reference to religious concepts, and individuals who appropriate religious concepts as excuses for sociopathic butchery.

 

Thanks for that.  I am exceedingly weary of a knee jerk reaction to faith within the Objectivist community.  I believe it stems from a limited reading of Ayn Rand's most popular works, and an eagerness to win favor by drinking the Arian Kool-aid.  Those, who have read everything, know that Rand is more generous to those of mixed values that some of her more popular essays might suggest.   

I would also remind the knee jerks that our founding fathers were religious, albeit mostly Deist.  They did a pretty fine job of designing the greatest governing document the world has ever seen; the first constitution in human history to recognize that a legitimate government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

A belief in God is not necessarily the road to perdition.

PS--You must be the most organized man in creation, I am constantly amazed at the links you pull from seemingly thin air. Still wish you would take a look at Post #5, Re:  Getting Rights Right.


Post 10

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David Elmore writes:

Actions can give us more insight into how much a person believes what he is saying and will act on it -- whether he's got a dichotomy or not. It can give us more insight into character. But we don't need the actions to evaluate (judge) the ideas.
 
This is the key point Leonard Peikoff makes in "Fact and Value" with which I disagree: that moral judgment should be mainly of ideas, rather than actions.

But I've already written at length about why that is an inversion of the Objectivist ethics.


Post 11

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

I agree with your statement and I was imprecise in my formulation. I should have said, you can't take a person's faith in isolation from the rest of his professed ideas as an indication of what he will do.

Many of the Founding Fathers believed in natural rights theory, but disagreed on the source of those rights.

Also, the fact that someone has a professed belief does not mean they  will act on it. However, to the extent that they do act on it consistently we can expect that irrational ideas will lead to irrational outcomes.

Jim


Post 12

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gentlemen- I appreciate your tireless energy in filling in my "aw, bullshit" comment. I stand in awe of my fellow Soloistas, from the remarkable wisdom the young to the almost infinite patience of the more "seasoned".

In order not to be guilty of the same broad brush stroke on Mr. Dawkins used in this quote to smear President Bush , let me say that Richard Dawkins has written many interesting books that I have read over the years on the subject of natural selection. In the ongoing discussion expanding our knowledge of Darwin's theory of evolution, he has been an important contributor.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ask yourself who is truly farthest removed from reality and morality: the vast majority of decent and reasonable people, like President Bush, who also happen to be religious -- or Mr. Knapp, whose anarcho-epistemology can't help him distinguish between a church-goer and a car bomber.

I think, therefore I am -- I believe, therefore I carbomb


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of clothes and sex against the side of nakedness and chastity. Both have impeccable taste in clothes that they hold is right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he takes off his clothes he is going to have sex. Each believes that if he could outfuck the other, his path to paradise in this world would be even swifter. The delusional "sex act" is welcome to both of them. This frigid world would be a much better place without either of them.
 
Sorry Thomas. It is awfully hard to take this one seriously.
 
Michael


Post 15

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jim, for clarifying. And I certainly agree with what you say about expecting irrational ideas leading to irrational outcomes.

Robert,

It's been 12 years since I read Fact and Value, but I don't recall Peikoff saying that there was a proportionality of judgment concerning ideas and actions. What I recall him saying is that one can certainly always judge actions  and  ideas, which I agree with; you do not judge (or give more weight) to one over the other. Each simply is rational or irrational or an innocent error. I will post an article on this subject in the near future and try to cover fresh ground in so doing. (I know that will be difficult, so I will try to be clear!)

The thrust of my future post will concern how we can most often discern whether someone's ideas result from irrationality or just error of knowledge -- in which cases we can make a full judgment of their ideas or at least postpone judgment until more information is available.

And the same thing goes for actions. We can often know whence the action originated, and therefore judge it. But we run into the exact same difficulty with actions as we do with ideas: What was the origin and/or is it on its face irrational?

The main point will center around each case of judgment surrounding our detective work on the idea or action. I still need to flesh out a few things in this regard before I feel completely comfortable with the issue.


Post 16

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Tim Sturm:

"Fortunately, Bush doesn't sit around simply wishing Bin Laden didn't exist."

Absolutely correct. Indeed, the evidence would tend to indicate that Bush is doing everything in his power to perpetuate bin Laden's existence.

Tom Knapp

Post 17

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Robert Bidinotto:

"Many, many millions of religious people don't believe it is moral to deliberately target innocent civilians for mass murder."

True. However, neither bin Laden nor Bush are to be found among those many, many millions.

Tom Knapp

Post 18

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I do respect Dawkins for his incredible intelligence and wit at debunking mysticism over science, but even as far as science goes he sometimes tries to stray outside his field of expertise and get the wrong end of the stick.

This is one of those times. Dawkins is brilliant when he discusses Evolution with regard to his field of interest Zoology - but as soon as he strays into politics he starts to talk crap!

Richard, don't give up your day job!!!



Post 19

Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A more lengthy reply to Mr. Bidinotto:

"Mr. Knapp, editor of the posts on the libertarian news site Freedom News Daily, has chewed up many electrons here disputing the negative opinions some of us have about anarcho-libertarians."

Actually, Freedom News Daily is not a site. It's a page on the ISIL site, and it is a sub-set of the material on a page on another site (Rational Review) of which I am publisher.

I am also not an "anarcho-libertarian" or an "anarcho-capitalist" or any other hyphenated thing. I am an anarchist, and I am a libertarian.

"[A]pparently Mr. Knapp and some of his anarcho-ilk find such differences between the supporters of President Bush and Osama bin Laden to be intellectually petty and morally irrelevant."

I don't regard the differences between Bush and bin Laden as irrelevant, either morally or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I consider Bush the moral inferior of bin Laden. At least bin Laden is up-front about his desire to enslave or kill me. Bush wants to blow smoke up my ass and pretend he's trying to protect me, while in actuality he and his organization do the former and threaten to do the latter should I resist.

"Mr. Knapp, whose anarcho-epistemology can't help him distinguish between a church-goer and a car bomber."

I can make the distinction quite easily. Some people who go to church -- bin Laden, for example -- are car-bombers. Other people who go to church -- Bush, for example -- have larger machinery at their disposal to do the same dirty work. And still others who go to church -- as I occasionally do -- aren't murderers at all.

"It just occurred to me that Mr. Knapp may reply that he is just innocently putting up this quotation without comment, for our consideration, and not necessarily endorsing its content."

Not quite. I partially endorse its content. I mainly put it up because it quite interestingly looked like Dawkins might have cribbed his notes from the work a writer you may have heard of. I think her name was "Ayn Rand."

"Let me pre-emptively deal with that possibility by inviting you to click here, and draw your own conclusions."

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Tom Knapp

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.