Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thesweetscience

  1. I just scrolled down into the various topics. It did not occur to me to do a "search" I was unfamiliar with that feature. I will be using it often from now on. Thanks again Bobby
  2. Thanks, this should clear a lot of things up. I appreciate you taking the time to gather these links. Bobby
  3. That was without a doubt the most educational thing I have read so far in this forum. I thank you very much for taking the time to write it. I can definately see your points and I agree with you. Let me just clarify that I do not currently believe in god. But, I had said that I reserve the right to believe in the possibility of his existence if the data changes. Your analogy about the elephants completely explained to me the problem with that line of thinking. Thanks again! Bobby
  4. In reading Peikoff I came across a passage that I think it appropriate. This is not verbatim but. "Something is either true, arbitrary or it is false". I believe that I accused the Bush administration of "misleading" or being "dishonest". If they made a claim and that claim turned out to be false, was that not misleading? Was it not dishonest? Bobby
  5. I have not reviewed any posts other than those dealing with election 2004. Could you please provide me with some links that I can study? Bobby
  6. I believe that the specific examples I gave are "real evidence". "These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council. George Tenet said, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates" According to the 9/11 report there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." Why do Americans believe it? I think the answer is in the way in which this war was "sold". These aren't leftist assumptions. This is objective reality. Bobby
  7. The term "War on Terrorism" is problematic for me in this arguement. It didn't really apply to Iraq until we attacked it. The terrorists have made Iraq a front for the war, but it wasn't that way prior to the day we invaded. Saddam Hussein although a despot, had a secular government. Bin Laden himself criticized him on many occassion. The only thing in common between Bin Laden and Hussein was a mutual hatred of the United States. I wholeheartedly believe that taking action against Afghanistan was justified. And I believe we must protect ourselves against terrorists. But, I do not believe those arguements apply to Iraq, unless you wish to accept the premise that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and was an imminent threat to the US. Bobby
  8. I chose this topic because from what I "knew" about Objectivism it seemed that the war was wrong. After reading a few posts here I noticed that many here favored the war. I want to know where my breakdown in thinking is. I mean dishonesty in its most common sense. I think they(the Bush administration) knew that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Yet they used subjectivism and implied that they were. As for WMDs, that is more debatable, did they know or didn't they? But, in this case there were inspectors on the ground in Iraq so it seems that the initiation of force was unwarranted.
  9. [MODERATOR'S NOTE: Thesweetscience is very new to Objectivism. I have placed this thread in the Basic Questions section as a reminder to viewers that his questions should be approached accordingly. The main issue here is how to solve philosophical problems. The main issue here is not to rehash pro's and con's of the war in Iraq, a subject treated voluminously in other threads. I will drop posts that do not address the central issue here: How a person new to Objectivism should go about applying the little he knows to particular problems.] I am a student of Objectivism so forgive me for not knowing the answers to these questions. But, from what I have read about Objectivism the war seems to contradict Ayn Rand's principles for the following reasons. 1. Ayn Rand was against the initiation of the use of force. 2. The war is altruistic, we are sacrificing ourselved for the sake of others who do not share our values or our principles. An Islamic government is sure to be installed. 3. The dishonesty used by our leaders to sell the war to us. Primarily I am referring to the way it was implied that somehow Iraq was involved in 9/11. But, this could also be expanded to the WMD myth. Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. Bobby
  10. Yes. It was Ayn Rand who taught me that....not someone else..Oh and that's Miss Rand to you!
  11. Are you really a physics professor? Because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. There is no contradiction between those two statements. I really have no desire to have any type of discussion or dialogue with you. Why can't you stop worrying so much about me and what I think? I have been directed by others here to the source of the information I need and do appreciate it. You have implied that I am "an enemy of Objectivism". I may be an enemy of Speicher but not Objectivism. Few things are more dear to me than Ayn Rand. But I do have lots of reading to do to catch up. Bobby
  12. I disagree with that characterization of what I said. What I have said and keep saying is that I don't believe that certain people will listen to the concept of Objectivism if you tell them they can't believe in God. Therefore it should be in Chapter 3 instead of Chapter 1 for CERTAIN PEOPLE. Since I don't going around trying to "convert" anyone. The only practical experience I have is watching the growth of my wife who would have never read Atlas Shrugged had she known the author was an atheist. And today she wants to learn as much as she can about Rand and Objectivism. I know I am right about this in certain situations. I do acknowledge being wrong about an Objectivists potential to believe in God. I was given wrong information by someone who should have known better. But, I am still not to the point where I understand why. Bobby
  13. That I need to do. I will do that as soon as possible. I want to understand. I hope it makes sense to me. Bobby
  14. I am trying really hard to leave this board. But, I keep feeling the need to type when I should just walk away. My knowledge of Objectivism was formed by the books The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I have also seen the "Sense of life" Doumentary. Everything else is from another member of this forum who I have known for the past 12 years. It is he that told me that belief in god was acceptable in Objectivism if based on reason. If he wants to make himself known then that is his decision. I can understand why religion is unacceptable in Objectivism. But, I am still having a hard time understanding why belief in the possibility of God isn't. I do not mind being called wrong, I do mind being attacked. Speicher strikes me as the angry sort of narrow minded person who I have been dealing with in society all of my life. Nothing about him makes me feel he is enlightened or any different than mystics or collectivists that attack anyone who doesnt think the same way they do. I am sure he knows every word of what Ayn Rand has written and his knowledge of physics would make Einstein proud. But, if that is the model human being, then that is not who I want to be. I reserve the right to believe in god (although I don't now), because I don't believe in "guessing". The true origin of this universe is not known to me or anyone else. If there is ever proof there was a creator then I will listen. Otherwise I will base my belief on all available data. Isn't that what Objectivism is? We are not talking about Judeo-Christian mythology here. I am more than willing to listen to anyone elses opinon and if they can show me where I am wrong... I love to learn, especially about Objectivism. I live in Oklahoma, the middle of the "bible belt". I know the culture of the people around me and the way I myself was raised. If a person tells you to reject religion they are instant enemies. I don't believe in HIDING Rand's opinion of Religion. I just think it should not be the first part of Objectivism that is explained. Hence my explanation of "finessing". If that is wrong I don't see why. Just setting someone on the path to understanding these concepts for themself instead of telling them the hardest parts for them to accept upfront is not really dishonest. I hope I am making sense and do not get accused of something else now. Bobby
  15. I came to this forum because someone attacked Ayn Rand in another message board. Because I have tremendous respect for her and her works, but not enough "technical knowledge" to argue the points properly I solicited help from the members here. The early responses were that I should ignore them and that there was nothing worthy of responding to. I didnt accept that and began to try and defend her and Objectivism to the best of my ability. For that I was roundly criticized and accused of "proselytizing". I became interested in Objectivism because of it's free thinking and logical reasoning way. It seemed beautiful to me and The Fountainhead moved me like no other book has. I must admit before a few days ago I have never had a single negative thought about Objectivism. But, there are people here who I do not wish to be anything like. In closing, I want to thank the few here who understood where I was coming from and thanks to Inspector for standing up to the idiot who started all of this. I won't bother you guys anymore. Bobby
  16. The only think I edited was the word "god" which I UNcapitalized. It is not semantics, you misread what I wrote. I never said or meant that one can be an atheist and believe that there is a creator. Didn't say it and I don't believe it. You can attack anything that I say that is wrong, just not things I didn't say. Especially when I agree completely that it would be untrue to say "A person can be an atheist and still believe in a creator" I find that to be as idiotic as you do.
  17. I have re-read my last post and unless I am going blind I did capitalize correctly. And I did NOT say that a person can be an atheist and still believe in a creator either. So maybe you are reading posts by someone else or living in another universe because I didnt say or do either of the two things you just accused me of.
  18. Sherlock, remember the context of the question that was asked of me. "Does one have to be an atheist to be an Objectivist" 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. If the question had been can a person have "religious faith" and still be an Objectivist? I would have definately answered no. I still believe in the strictest sense my answer to him is correct. It may be a technicality, but it is still correct.
  19. I certainly agree that mystics are irrational. But, not everyone who is irrational is incurably irrational. They have been programmed from an early age to believe certain things and to fear anyone who dares question their belief in god. I think that by trying to teach the principles of thinking for yourself and not being led by the collective first, you don't scare them away and you at least move them to the point where they can understand why mysticism is irrational and wrong. Maybe I am wrong. But, I have certainly seen this manifest itself in my wife. It is easy to say that I shouldn’t care about what others think. And I really don't. But, to try and create more Objectivists is a worthy goal. Because, ultimately it makes the world a better place for me to live in. Side note: I am not going to respond to Speichers posts. His 'holier than thou' attitude and insulting way of discussing this are not something that I choose to participate in.
  20. If you will read what I said, it makes sense. You don't want to make someone stop hearing what you are saying before you even get started. Maybe that is salesmanship. But, there isnt anything wrong with it if it helps people to see and understand Objectivism. I think the religion aspect of Objectivism is a journey that a person who converts will eventually understand on their own. I have seen that first hand with my wife. What if a person believes in god based on logical reasons of the complexities of the universe and the odds of it happening at random? Or perhaps because of certain amazing coincidences (miracles) that they have seen in their lives. These reasons are not based on faith but by reason. And since I cannot disprove God any more than they can prove God, then it seems a bit unreasonable to unilaterally claim that there is no creator and leave no room for acceptance of facts and reason to change my mind if those fact become available. Bobby
  21. Thanks for the kind words and the clarifications I am agnostic at best and my motives for saying that religion is not unacceptable to an objectivist lie in the fact that if someone tells a mystic that belief in god is bad, they will automatically think that everything you are saying is rooted in evil and stop listening. I think they need to be finessed into grasping the basic principles of objectivism first before they can accept the harder parts. By me saying God is arbitrary and can't be proven or disproven, but must be solved with logic and reason, is saying by osmosis that there is no god. But I think they need to reach that conclusion on their own. Isn't the only thing an objectivist must think is that they must THINK? Bobby
  22. Inspector, Please explain to me what you meant when you posted: "does one have to be an atheist to be a pure "objectivist"" Yes. Because my understanding is that if a person can come to the conclusion of a deity based on reason instead of faith in the unknown, then it (belief in a deity) is compatitble with an objectivist philosophy. Thanks Bobby
  23. What about his characterization of the book??? Also there are a lot of people in that room hearing the name Ayn Rand for the first time. I would like some true intellectuals to step in and help explain what I really am not able to do properly. I cannot give her the justice she deserves. But people here can. I hope someone will take a few minutes and post something. Bobby
  • Create New...