Leaderboard

I actually made a similar inquiry some time ago here and the answers I got were more than satisfactory (see 2046's reply for an answer regarding "encirclement")

General note: if I recall correctly, ctrl y is a fellow who used to be an Objectivist and now considers himself Christian. The only reason I mention this is because some people seem to think he is not familiar with Oist principles and I believe it is the case that he is very familiar with them and disagrees anyway. I don't know if this affects how people choose to engage in this argument, but it might.

I'm not understanding why it is that Objectivists "just have to respond" to every argument ever put out for theism, or it becomes a "problem for Objectivism." Is it a problem for you that you haven't responded to every arbitrary assertion I can make up? Why would this be a problem for anyone? What does that mean? If I don't respond to every argument ever put out or formulated by every theist, and every variation on every theme, ever, does that make theism more true in your mind? Does that lend extra veracity to it? Make it more plausible? Does that make you feel better about its truth in some way? A-ha, my opponents aren't even listening to me anymore, I win! Whoever evades the most and out-annoys everyone else until they give up and ignore you wins? Does it diminish the truth-value of atheism, or make whatever truths Objectivism holds less truth in some way? Why is someone's refusal to entertain the arbitrary a problem for their philosophy? Personally speaking, the opportunity costs of exchanging polemics with mystics versus people who believe, say, altruism is rational, or that collectivism is necessary, or what have you, are pretty high you know. But I can see the point in saying that, maybe among professional academics, less scholarly material has been put out against religion in general (not necessarily responding to every theist, ever.) Especially if you believe "religion is the number one threat." Then you think you might want to write a book about it, or fund someone else to write a book refuting all types of religion, or at least get the transcriptions to some of your lectures published in book-form. But still, that wasn't the point. The point was that we have to for some reason "keep abreast" of every new variation on the standard arguments for God, and if we don't, that somehow is a problem for our standing in the world, or some such.

Except that it is not raw. Nothing in nature looks like what the artist recorded on his canvas. The images have been selected and processed in accordance with the sentiment Picasso wished to express.