Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'religion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Introductions and Local Forums
    • Introductions and Personal Notes
    • Local Forums
  • Philosophy
    • Questions about Objectivism
    • Metaphysics and Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Political Philosophy
    • Aesthetics
  • Culture
    • Current Events
    • Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures
    • Productivity
    • Intellectuals and the Media
  • Science and the Humanities
    • Science & Technology
    • Economics
    • History
    • Psychology and Self Improvement
  • Intellectual Activism and Study Groups
    • Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
    • Study/Reading Groups
    • Marketplace
    • The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
  • Miscellaneous Forums
    • Miscellaneous Topics
    • Recreation and The Good Life
    • Work, Careers and Money
    • School, College and Child development
    • The Critics of Objectivism
    • Debates
  • The Laboratory
    • Ask Jenni
    • Books to Mind – Stephen Boydstun
    • Dream Weaver's Allusions
    • The Objectivist Study Groups
    • Eiuol's Investigations
  • About Objectivism Online
    • Website Policy and Announcements
    • Help and Troubleshooting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Other Public-visible Contact Info


Location


Interests


Chat Nick


Interested in meeting


Real Name


Digg Nick


Biography/Intro


Experience with Objectivism


School or University


Occupation

Found 7 results

  1. On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on the good in American culture, romance between an atheist and a believer, the limits of humor, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 30 December 2012, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Good in American Culture: How is American culture better today better than people think? I've heard lots of depressing claims about the abysmal state of American culture lately, particularly since Obama won the election. You've disputed that, arguing that America is better in its fundamentals that many people think. What are some of those overlooked but positive American values? How can they be leveraged for cultural and political change? Question 2: Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter? Question 3: The Limits of Humor: When does humor work against my values? Sometimes I wonder whether my jokes work against what I value. (For example, what's the most selfish sea creature? An Objectifish!) How do I draw the line? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 30 December 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Be sure to follow Philosopy in Action via our blog, RSS feeds, and Facebook too. P.S. I've started a new thread because the old thread had "webcast" in the title, but I'm now purely on radio.
  2. CrowEpistemologist

    Corruption drives history

    See: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/b6364d/sarah-chayes-extended-interview In a couple of other threads where we have discussed taxation and terrorism, a recurring topic is the one revolving around the drivers of history (which in turn gives us insight into the future). Does religion create terrorism, or do terrorists (with other motives) use religion as a tool? Or a combination of both? I suggested that looking through the lens of philosophy is not actually very helpful, despite Ayn Rand's obvious bias in this regard. I instead suggested we look corruption as the driver of history (particularly modern-day history). A few days ago I watched the linked interview here from an author that clearly knows the Middle East extremely well. She explains the rise of terrorism (and terrorist regimes like Isis) better than I've ever seen anybody do so: she shows how corruption leads directly to terrorism. I have also said that reason is the cure--the only cure--for political corruption. I have always maintained that we Objectivists should be the guardians of reason and reality--making sure people know that facts are the basis of a better life and a more fair and effective government. it's our job to fight populism, and to stamp out superstition and other epistemological games corrupt power-brokers play to ply their trade. As an example, I have personally switched my own "political party bias" from Republican to Democrat in the last 20 years because I now see the former as the party of populism, blatant institutionalized (and celebrated) stupidity and unreason (and to be clear, it's a bias not an absolute sort of thing--and I bring up this point up only as an example). I see corruption as our enemy, not "taxes" or "regulations" per se (although both can be the fruits corruption). If we don't defend reason, nobody will. It should be our top priority.
  3. In The God Delusion, Dawkins cites a man with a rather interesting opinion. He states that he doesn't actually endorse this opinion, but he rather presents it as something to think about. I can't remember the guy's name (and I don't have the book with me at the moment), but he believes that it should be illegal to teach religion to children who are too young to look at the arguments and make the decision for themselves. He considers it to be child abuse. He believe it should be illegal in church, school, and even at home, by the parents. I certainly understand his argument and I detest the way that children are brainwashed into religion. But there's still something about his argument that doesn't sit right with me. Discuss.
  4. kowalskil

    The fight for religious freedom

    The fight for religious freedom in America This PBS video, broadcasted yesterday, is worth watching and thinking about. http://video.pbs.org/video/2315729403 It is full of topics worth debating, either here or elsewhere. Please share the link with those who might also be interested. Best wishes to all, Ludwik Kowalski http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html .
  5. A careful 30% excerpt from the preface from Lawrence Kraus's January 2012 book A Universe From Nothing: ...I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is at the basis of all of the world’s religions. Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to vibrant rainbows after a late-afternoon summer shower. Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every such object is lovingly and painstakingly and, most important, purposefully created by a divine intelligence... Ultimately, many thoughtful people are driven to the apparent need for First Cause, as Plato, Aquinas, or the modern Roman Catholic Church might put it, and thereby to suppose some divine being: a creator of all that there is, and all that there ever will be, someone or something eternal and everywhere. Nevertheless, the declaration of a First Cause still leaves open the question, “Who created the creator?” After all, what is the difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one?... The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn’t require God to actually exist. For more than two thousand years, the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” has been presented as a challenge to the proposition that our universe—which contains the vast complex of stars, galaxies, humans, and who knows what else—might have arisen without design, intent, or purpose. While this is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science.... Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of “nothing”—a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand “nothing.” (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.) “Nothing,” they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is “nonbeing,” in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define “intelligent design” when I first began debating with creationists, of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn’t. “Intelligent design” is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing” as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe. But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.” It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.... ...cience is changing the playing field in ways that make people uncomfortable. Of course, that is one of the purposes of science (one might have said “natural philosophy” in Socratic times). Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of new insights. Surely, invoking “God” to avoid difficult questions of “how” is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no potential for creation, then God couldn’t have created anything. It would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature and, therefore, the “potential” for existence itself is not a part of the nothingness from which existence arose. ...When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, religion and theology have been at best irrelevant. They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence... Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one’s a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one’s theoretical models. ...The tapestry that science weaves in describing the evolution of our universe is far richer and far more fascinating than any revelatory images or imaginative stories that humans have concocted. Nature comes up with surprises that far exceed those that the human imagination can generate. . The true inspiration for this book comes not so much from a desire to dispel myths or attack beliefs, as from my desire to celebrate knowledge and, along with it, the absolutely surprising and fascinating universe that ours has turned out to be. The direct genesis of this book hearkens back to October of 2009, when I delivered a lecture in Los Angeles with the same title. Much to my surprise, the YouTube video of the lecture, made available by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, has since become something of a sensation, with nearly a million viewings as of this writing, and numerous copies of parts of it being used by both the atheist and theist communities in their debates....
  6. realityChemist

    Atheism 2.0 at TED

    I found an interesting video on TED.com today, in which speaker Alain de Botton says that, while we need not agree with religions, we (meaning atheists in general, not specifically objectivists) may want to look into adopting some of their methods. I don't agree with everything that he says, but he made some interesting points. I especially liked what he had to say about art (his view seems rather O'ist). Below I've provided a link to the video (19:21 long), which includes a complete transcript on the webpage. http://www.ted.com/t...theism_2_0.html
  7. Wotan

    Utopia and Paradise

    The utopians Plato (The Republic), Thomas Moore (Utopia), Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan), and Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto) all lead to the Leftist tyranny of socialism. The "paradisists" Moses (Jewish bible), Jesus (Christian bible), Muhammad (Islamic bible), and Joseph Smith (Mormon bible) all lead to the Rightist tyranny of religion. Both groups of irrational idealists hope to deliver us all to a kind of ultimate end place -- a perfect society or Xanadu -- which is never going to happen. Their belief-systems are deeply foolish, naive, and ignorant. And their ideologies are also depraved, since even if you could visit their unreal utopia or paradise, you wouldn't ultimately want to live there. It would be a kind of living hell, unfit for normal, healthy, individualistic, struggling, ambitious, achieving, flawed, mortal, human beings. The utopians above cause physical slavery to the state, while the paradisians above cause mental slavery to "god." One false ideal results in a kind of vast social coercion and destruction of society. The other false ideal results in a kind of vast personal coercion and destruction of the individual. Both mistaken hopes and dreams result in universal self-sacrifice and self-destruction. Their false and evil moral code should probably be described as "the religio-socialist ethic" (not "the Judeo-Christian ethic"). Both families and categories of belief constitute nonsensicality and philosophy gone badly wrong. These massively untrue and immoral groups of ideologies need to be defeated thru the assiduous application of healthy, sound, proper philosophy. A philosophy which provides the hungry, needy Holy Individual with meaning, purpose, pleasure, exhilaration, and personal greatness in his life. And these two related, mistaken categories of ideology need to be defeated thru the Western liberal ideals of reason, individualism, and freedom. Reason will defeat monotheistic paradisism, freedom will defeat communist utopianism, and individualism will defeat both. Unfortunately, so far the champions of reason and philosophy haven't fully done their job. They haven't provided a guide to life with enough rich satisfaction and deep fulfillment to successfully defeat the utopians and paradisists.
×