Hannibal

Yeah, I'm sorry this has been such an intellectual vacuum of a conversation. Please forgive me for not being as perfect as you and disagreeing with you. I'm through with this board. You go right on believing that you're perfect.

Do I believe that they exist? No. Can I prove that they don't? No. Thankyou for making my point.

Most theologians agree that God cannot control reality in the sense that he cannot violate logic. When asked if God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it, they will answer "no." Perhaps it isn't that God controls nature as much as it is that God is nature and, thus, can make it whatever He needs it to be.

Where I think you differ from Theists is that you claim something must be outside of reality to control nature. Look at it from the point of view of a cartoonist. A cartoonist can control everything, including physical laws, in his cartoon. He exists outside of the cartoon but he still exists. This is the way Theists look at God. He exists outside what we know of reality but not outside of reality as a whole. My stance on God is simply that I haven't been given a reason to believe in him, so I renounced my faith. But I will never say that I am "certain" that there is no God.

I have. So...a being that has power to go beyond nature. Okay. Where does the "must be outside of reality" fit in.

I already admitted that that was a poor choice of words. Do I think I could be wrong that most Objectivists (the ones I know) are dogmatic? No, because I don't believe that definitions can be violated. Most of the ones I have met are the epitome of the definition of "dogmatism." I know you're gonna say that all of the Objectivists beliefs are provable through definitions. To which I reply, "bullshit." If they were provable through definitions, everyone with any form of rationality would accept them, the same way that any rational person accepts that 1+1=2. Let me say again, that I firmly believe in the concepts of individualism and Capitalism. I feel the need to put that disclaimer in all my posts so that no one thinks I'm a hippie or something. I'll say again that pretty much the only reason I do not accept Objectivism, in full, is because of its epistemology. A perfect example is its stance on God. It says that we can know for certain that there is no God. Now, any reasonable person admits that it's impossible to prove a negative unless it is done by logic. Okay, that's fine. The argument that God cannot exist is that God, by definition, must exist outside of reality and anything that exists outside of reality cannot exist. I don't know what brainiac came up with the idea that "existing outside of reality" is part of the definition of God, but I cannot think of a single religion who uses that as a part of its definition of God. Supernatural does not mean "outside of reality;" it typically means "beyond our understanding of nature." Most people would agree that ghosts represent the supernatural. Watch the movie Poltergeist and then tell me that the ghosts in that movie are supposed to exist outside of reality. I don't believe in ghosts or God, but it's ridiculous to claim that the supernatural must exist outside of reality. Okay, you wanted your example and now you have it. Flame away.

I already said that I phrased it poorly. Yes, I think that most Objectivists are dogmatic and I think that Objectivism encourages dogmatism, through the stance that it cannot possibly be wrong. I realize that it's supposed to be proved logically, but I have yet to see it done. Certain assumptions have to be made in order to prove it.

I'm referring more to the "arrogant" part than the "unwarranted" part. Also, never bring the dictionary into a philosophical discussion.

The slew of hostile posts that have been directed at me are enough to make me want to leave this board. I hope this isn't how you treat all people who disagree with you, because I notice that you're doing the same thing to Bondolon. You want to know why I say that most Objectivists are dogmatic? That's a pretty good example right there. As I said before, I agree with many of the principles of Objectivism but I cannot accept it in full because of its arrogant stance on epistomology.

I haven't seen fit to answer your questions because I haven't been here. Jesus, you people are getting awfully uptight about this. I'll answer your questions when I have time to compose a thought-out response. I have a genetics test tomorrow and an English paper to start writing, but I'll get to it sometime within the next week.

Of the 2 parties who actually stand a chance at winning, the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils. If I had my choice of parties to be in charge of things, I'd choose the Libertarians but that isn't likely to happen in the near future.

I'll agree with this. The philosophy itself may not be dogmatic but most Objectivists treat it that way and the writings seem to encourage it.

I hope you realize that you're all proving my point. One element of dogmatism is getting up in arms whenever someone attacks your belief system. It's the equivalent of a southern Baptist yelling "Blasphemy!" when you ask him to prove that God exists. I have met Dr. Bernstein. And I'm here partially because GreedyCapitalist asked me to start posting on his boards but partially because I'm very interested in Objectivism. I am not an Objectivist but I am sympathetic to many of its principles. I disagree with a lot of it, such as the way it encourages dogmatism. I also have some issues with its epistemology.

Most Objectivists I've met are extremely dogmatic. I went to a speech by Andrew Bernstein and he talked about it as though it were a religion.

I have to agree with him on one point: where he says that Objectivism is too dogmatic. People need to realize that it's okay to not take every word Ayn Rand wrote as though it were the word of God.