Sherlock

Thesweetscience, You apparently don't have a problem with deceiving "converts", nor do you have a problem with attempting to deceive us over a trivial matter such as this. I don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who does not value honesty. Adios.

Ahh, so I wasn't going blind either: you edited your post and then chose to accuse me of "reading posts by someone else or living in another universe". That's rather tasteless, and deceptive to boot.

Thesweetscience, You wrote: "And I did NOT say that a person can be an atheist and still believe in a creator either." This is what you wrote: "I take the term atheist to be a person who does not believe in "god". I think a person CAN believe in a creator and still be an Objectivist." Semantics, pure semantics. As for the capitalization, I apologize if I was wrong. I may have seen an earlier post while scrolling through. Mea culpa.

Thesweetscience, You've got to be kidding. To pretend that to be an atheist, one cannot believe in God but still can believe in a "creator" is simply ludicrous. You are indulging in semantics, and not very effective semantics at that. No, a person most emphatically can NOT believe in a "creator" and still be an Objectivist (which, by the way, you have been asked to capitalize before---please do so). I don't think you understand Objectivism at all if you think this. By the way, I just went there and found that there have been quite a few more posts. I haven't read them yet, but I hope you will be more careful in what you say before responding.

Thesweetscience, You wrote: But, to try and create more Objectivists is a worthy goal." Objectivism can stand on its own. To conceal the fact that Objectivism rejects religious faith to "lure 'em in" is distasteful and also ultimately disrespectful of those you are trying to "convert". Mr. Speicher is simply not doing what you wish to do to others: candy-coat truth. I guess it does seem fitting that those who advocate hiding the blunt truth are themselves unable to accept truth unless it is cloaked with nice words.

The Durande, You wrote: "I won't even do him the service of repeating some of his nonsense here. You'll have to read his typing (I refuse even to call it a book) for yourself." Fair enough---I won't put you through it! But do you know of anywhere on the web that I might find a rebuttal?

The Durande, You wrote: "As I went through the struggles to understand Objectivism, I never came up with a good argument against Objectivism. I simply strove to grasp it all." Have you read Scott Ryan's book, "The Corruption of Rationality"? I'd be curious to know what you thought of it. I haven't read it, but it appears that he is making an argument against certain aspects of Objectivism which, if true, would erode the coherence of Objectivism. I think that Free Capitalist's views on this topic are correct.

In reading the responses to the initial question, it seems reasonable to say that if the responses so far reflect an accurate understanding of Objectivism, then Objectivism, at least in this area, is no different than some mainstream strains of conservatism. Most of my friends are conservatives, and they would express the exact sentiments, reasons, etc. that are given above. I am curious: in what other areas would Objectivism and conservatism be in essential agreement? I guess that's a topic for a new thread...

Thank you, Stephen. I have questions (and arguments) about Objectivism from time to time, and these are not born of dishonesty.

Christian fundamentalists are easy pickings. A Christian who is a student of Aquinas, however, is not so easily dealt with. You should argue against your opponents' best arguments, not his worst.

Danielshrugged, Again, there's no need to be defensive: I am an amateur history buff, and so I tend to be strict about such things. You wrote: "I never claimed that I did not leave out details." And I am not saying that you ever claimed to have them all. What I am reacting to is this part: "Christian leaders declared, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that Jesus was born on December 25". ALL of the evidence to the contrary? Yes, they were aware of the information that you cite, but there were disagreements on that point and other arguments were also considered. Your statement is simply too strong for the historical facts. It is misleading as a result. You wrote: "Certainly the Bible contains no positive evidence of a December birthday." You're correct. It offers a few possible clues that early Christians could debate about--which they did. You wrote: "They were setting a date for a Christian holiday in order to get rid of a pagan one." Now we're finally getting somewhere! Yes, I agree that Christians christianized pagan festivals. We can agree on that. However, please note the way that you wrote your sentence: "Early Christians DID want to stop Christmas celebrations". It's the way that you phrased it that made no sense. If you had written : "Early Christians wanted to stop pagan celebrations", that would have made sense. I can agree with that. They wanted the celebrations, mind you---but they wanted them to be Christian. You wrote: "I would argue that you're over-complicating the matter. The Church banned carols(from services) several times INSOFAR as they considered them secular." And I would posit that your original statement, "Christmas carols were banned as early as the 600s AD", is misleading because it gives the impression that carols were banned, period, and not just in one particular formal setting. Your essay, after all, was about the general celebrations of Christmas, not formal liturgical services. Butchering a cow and roasting it while IN church would probably not have been looked upon favorably, but if I were to say that the "Early Christians banned the butchering and roasting of livestock", that would be misleading, don't you think? You wrote: " In that sense, it is possible that a culture can have more Christians than another culture while being less Christian." I agree, however the key word is "possible". If you are going to state "19th century America was less serious about religion", you are going to have to present more than just "possibles" to back that statement up---"possible" is very subjective, as is "less" Christian. You are presenting your statement as if it were fact, and it is not. If you are presenting it as your opinion, you should make it clear that it is opinion and present research that indicates why you hold that opinion. In this case, because this statement flies against historical conventional wisdom (I am a Civil War buff in particular, and so am very familiar with historians of that era), you will need to present solid research that shows just how it is that scholars and historians missed the boat and got it wrong. Best of luck to you, though. I just think you need to have a more solid historical footing.

Danielshrugged, Your response doesn't even attempt to address the points I brought up, which were not extensive. And no, re-reading your article does not address my points either. Look, there's no need to be defensive: I am merely trying to point out that you have some serious errors in the history you present. I wasn't going to go in depth about them, but since a hint didn't do it, here's a more extensive list: You wrote: "Then in the fourth century, Christian leaders declared, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that Jesus was born on December 25." Actually, this is a very simplistic presentation of the process. The earliest Christians did not celebrate the feast separately because it was the habit of the Roman rulers to celebrate their birthdays, and some thought it dishonorable to do anything that smacked of that. Sometimes the Nativity was merely combined with the celebration of Epiphany, which was January 6 (I think some Eastern churches might still celebrate it then, but I'd have to check). The first evidence of the feast being put on the liturgical calendar was in Egypt, in about 200 AD, and the date was not settled---some thought May 20, others some dates in March. The arguments for deciding on a date on the liturgical calendar were varied, and included: speculations regarding the likely times of Zachary's temple service; analogy to Old Testament festivals; and yes, the date of the well-known solar feast of Natalis Invicti which was adapted to Christian purposes (the feast of Saturnalia, which you mentioned, is not considered a likely source of the date). There was not, as you suggest, much "evidence to the contrary" that those concerned with setting the liturgical calendar ignored, though conflicting opinions were in good supply. Your statement, "Early Christians DID want to stop Christmas celebrations" simply ignores the fact that the very ones you charge with stopping Christmas were the same ones that were busily setting a date for it. That simply doesn't make sense. You wrote: "Christmas carols were banned as early as the 600s AD" Another over-simplification: the earliest Christmas hymns that were used in liturgical services go back to the 4th century. Some forms of carols were banned from formal liturgical services, but that doesn't mean that they were generally banned---in fact, they thrived. St. Francis of Assisi is generally credited with bringing carols back into the formal worship in 1223. When you write, "Christmas was not seriously celebrated in America until the 19th century", and attribute that to capitalism instead of to the tremendous influx of Catholic immigrants to a previously very Protestant culture, you are going off track. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the two cultures---I would suggest a bit more research here. And your statement, "19th century America was less serious about religion" is quite remarkable, as it flies in the face of the assessment of most historians. It is not unreasonable of me to ask you to support this unusual assertion with some evidence or sources that can be examined.

BurgessLau, You wrote: "I am convinced that I need a purpose in life, and it is happiness -- my happiness in this world." Well put (as usual). I would point out, though, that traditional, orthodox Christianity does not disagree with your position. I am thinking here of Aquinas, who writes: "The last end of man's life is stated to be happiness". No one seeks happiness in order to be rich, or powerful, or wise, but people seek riches, or power, or wisdom because they think these will make them happy. So Thomistic Christianity would posit that the pursuit of purpose OF life, as you put it, also provides the happiness IN life. This view is not always shared by Christians of the Protestant (and particularly fundamentalist) bent, who seem a bit Gnostic in that they often regard material things as evil. I would guess that the author Warren is in this category.

Danielshrugged, "19th century America was less serious about religion"??? That's quite a surprising statement, and I don't think that most (if indeed any) historians would agree with you. What facts are you basing this on? You wrote: " Early Christians DID want to stop Christmas celebrations; that is the reason they usurped the holiday." What is your source for this? Why would Christians want to stop Christmas, which is a Christian celebration ("Christ's Mass"--get it?)? It seems to me that if they wanted to "stop Christmas", they wouldn't have bothered to Christianize pagan celebrations. They would have simply tried to stop the pagan celebrations. Also, since Christianity was persecuted until 312 (when it then became legal to practice it), the early Christians were hardly in a position to tell the Roman Empire what celebrations would and would not take place.

I think the essay is a bit confusing: if Christians thought that celebrations were so bad (the early Christians didn't, which is why they merely Christianized existing pagan festivals and incorporated some rituals), why is there a tradition of Christmas celebrations? I think you need to spell out the difference that the Reformation made in this regard: the Puritans and other Protestants were against Christmas celebrations because they saw them as too "Catholic". The reason Christmas wasn't "seriously celebrated in America until the 19th century" was not because America was capitalist, but because America was largely Protestant. You're missing some important history. So it seems as if you are giving contradicting criticisms: that Christians celebrate Christmas, and that they dislike celebrating Christmas.

Tommyedison, You wrote: "Neuron is the basic unit of the nervous system. Can one neuron make a nervous system? Society is a system whose basic unit is the individual." BurgessLau had an excellent clarification of the use of the word "unit" in an earlier post. In your case, you are using the word "unit" with the first understanding of that word that he posits. With that as your understanding, you are correct. I was using the word consistent with his explanation of the second meaning of the term "unit".

Hal, This is off topic, but I did want to comment on your post: I believe it's a ban on cloning that the US is seeking globally. As for where you got your impression: I'm sure the Democrats had something to do with that. Kerry and Edwards made it sound as if the adminstration was against ALL stem-cell research, and deliberately made no distinction between embryonic and other stem cells. But of course it's not banned---California just voted to have the taxpayers fund embryonic stem cell research. It's just federal funding that has been denied for any new lines obtained from embryos. I don't think this is the government's business to be in anyhow, so I don't have a problem with this restriction. I also think that the taxpayers of California got suckered: the results from embryonic stem cell research have NOT been promising at all. The advances have come from adult stem cell and cord blood research. The companies involved probably couldn't get their own investors on board because of the dismal success with embryonic stem cells, so they turned to the state government. And lots of people bought it hook, line, and sinker because of some hope for cures.

Kevin, You wrote: "You must have the full physical experience" "Must"? Gosh, in my parent's generation (they are near 80), no premarital sex was the norm, and those marriages certainly were far more lasting than those of my generation, where premarital sex was the norm. Also, when you say that "there isn't any reason in the world" why unmarried partners shouldn't have sex, I think you are also ignoring the very real differences between men and women in this regard. Women, whether you see it or not, view sex differently than men and are much more likely to be damaged emotionally than men by numerous affairs.

Thanks, Burgess, for your excellent clarification.

ModernArchitect, I haven't read Schaefer, so I can merely say that his ideas (compatibility of faith and reason) are hardly new: this is Aquinas' position.

Hal, There aren't any bans against stem cell research. The government simply isn't going to fund embryonic stem cell research (other tem cell research is OK), but that doesn't keep private companies from doing so: they're welcome to it. Since it's hardly the government's job to be in this business to begin with, why would you object even if there were a ban?

Then you are obviously well-matched in class.

Free Capitalist, I wasn't making any statements about their "niceness", I was making an assessment of the relative merits of their theology in regards to scientific truth. Fundies are different from, say, Thomists in that regard. Anyway, I've been meaning to ask you: you apparently are a student of the Ancients. Although I have read some individual works (Aristotle, etc), do you have any recommendations for a broad overview of the history and philosophy of that era?

Zoso, You wrote, " I don't see how anything I've said is disrespectful to her or her family." I meant all of the comments, not just yours: someone here said her family were "irrational"; and your "horny" comments, though you have tried to justify them, are not respectful of your girlfriend. All I am saying is this: I wonder what she would think of you and Objectivists if she could read this whole exchange. Do you really think that she would appreciate it? Even though forum is anonymous, do you think she would think you were treating her with respect by discussing her possible pregnancy on the Internet? I think she'd drop you like a ton of bricks---or ought to.

Zoso, Well, this makes your Deism easier to understand: you believe in God, but not a God who asks anything from you (which is what you have rejected), especially chastity. I'm with Capitalism Forever on this one: if the girl isn't worth marrying, then it's a violation of her dignity and mine to treat her like an object. If you can't be heroic, but have to give in to your animal nature, then that's your business. I see that unplanned pregnancies are a real possibility for you, yet you're still not sure if you're going to marry the girl. I wonder what she would think if she could read this exchange, and see how she and her family are being discussed. You're a real hero.