Zephyr Delta

It's not really sharing ideas that I'm trying to do. My interaction with incompetents is solely for the reason of having interaction. There's no knowledge to gain from them, no values, except my desire to be considered "cool". My mind knows that their opinion and how they judge me means nothing. However, my emotions work the opposite way, telling me to converse with anyone who'll listen, even if they are a waste of my time. Essentially, I want to reduce my desire for social interaction in general, and save the remaining part of the desire for conversation with people that actually interest me. I wish to sit in class and not feel the need to talk to anyone just for the sake of talking. I could be doing something far more productive with my time; instead, a natural desire is pinning me to the ground, forcing me to waste my time talking when no value is to be gained. In the second paragraph you quoted, I used "opinions" and "acceptance" interchangably, with the same meaning. That was a mistake on my part. At this point, I think the best answer is to simply not interact anymore with those I don't want to. My emotions should eventually follow, and I'll be able to spend my time on more productive matters. If, after a month or two, I still have the desperate urge for interaction with those who I don't wish to associate myself with, I'll assess the situation again, this time with the knowledge of how I truly feel.

Why would God give men free will if he had already planned a time for them to die? You don't truly have free will if the time you're going to die is already pre-determined; you no longer have the free will to choose your own death. Or do you believe God to be above reason?

It seems to me that the only value I can get from them is satisfaction of my need for socialization. I do try to surround myself with intelligent people, but there are certain times when I simply can't. English class, for example. There's no one in that class that I truly wish to converse with, yet I still feel a natural desire to converse with them. Bascially, I don't like them, and I don't want to talk to them, but my desire for socialization is stronger; and I have to talk to someone: thus, it becomes them I converse with. The best answer I can come up with is to, as tommyedison suggested, stop interacting with them. My emotions should soon follow my mind. It probably is just a matter of being new to Objectivism. aequalsa, it seems I've mixed up my tenses. What I actually meant to say is "How can I learn to ignore the fact that a room of 100+ people who believed I was Christian, now no longer see me as normal, if I denounce Christianity in front of them? I haven't done so yet, but I'll have to some time in the near future. Since church is no longer of any value to me, I'm going to ask my parents if I can opt not to attend it. Regardless of their answer, the adults at my church who trusted me will undoubtedly find out that I've left Chrisitanity and question me, and I'll have to defend my position. I know in my mind that what I'm fighting for is the right thing, and that their opinions matter not; it just might be a while before I can fully integrate that principle into living my life. However, there is some scientific evidence suggesting that social interaction is necessary to the survival of man. Though it's an irrational fear, I worry sometimes that my interaction with these incompetents may be necessary to satisfying my physical need for socialization. I guess I'll just have to prove to myself that I don't require an excessant amount of interaction with others.

Not more than two weeks ago, I was a Collectivist, and a Christian. After finishing Atlas Shrugged, I immediately discovered the flaws in my life. The idea of living for one's own sake, and no one else's, was already an idea that I considered part of my values; unfortunately, it was overshadowed by my Collectivist side. However, I've shattered my old ideas and worked towards knowing Objectivism. The basic principles of Objectivism have already been realized by myself, it's just some of the technical issues that need work. Thus, it's not the importance of the principle that troubles me, nor the principle itself; it's living with the principle and applying it to pratical life, where it matters most. My problem is with my social status, and how others view me. It's really my interaction with a specific group of people that bothers me. There are two guys that I strongly dislike, for their outright immaturity. They laugh at the simplest of jokes, find humor in informal language ("lols poop, basically), etc. They are of absolute no rational value to me. However, I put up with their incompetence; worse yet, I sacrifice my time to tell them jokes, when I have no value to gain from them. It is an utter waste of my time dealing with them, and yet I always fall back on them when I have no one else to talk to. Their laughter is of no value to me, whereas I find value in making others laugh ("others" meaning a specific group of people, not the whole of humanity other than them). Therefore, I'd like to just completely ignore them, and not give them any attention. Now, it is possible that I find value in the social interaction with them. While their laughter makes no difference to me (I always feel an emptiness after telling them a joke), something drives me to talk to them rather than keeping to myself. I suppose a likely answer is simply: I value the social sanction of others, even if they're intellectually lacking (they have enough in common with me that I would prefer them over others who lack intellect). I define social sanction here as: the accpetance of another man purely for his social status. To permit another man to be "cool". For exmaple, when someone at school says that I'm "cool", I refer to that as social sanction. Typically, "cool" refers to my chatting with others, telling jokes, and the like. Hard to define, I know. Rambling, eh. I'll try and keep this next part short. I'm finding that social sanction is controlling my life over Objectivism; that I'm betraying my values in exchange for a zero, a zero of not being called "weird, abnormal, not-right". Even though I don't value Christianity, I still felt compelled to stand up today during church and admit that I believe in God. I found it horribly painful. Even if I value the social sanction of others, it was clearly a sacirifce I made today; the value of that social sanction was not as great as the value of obeying my values. And thus is my question: how can I work to devoid myself of the need of social sanction? How can I learn to ignore the fact that a room of 100+ people who believed I was Christian, now no longer see me as normal? I know that what they say doesn't matter, I understand that principle. But I just can't seem to live it.

It seems in the rush or writing, I forgot to consider a principle I already knew to be true: that God himself would have to be defined, and that the proof I threw behind him would not agree with a logical definition. Thus, I can argue no further.

Couldn't it be argued to an extent that Christianity does have some amount of proof backing it up? Albeit, weak and shaky proof, and not enough to prove it, but certainly there's more logical evidence for the idea of a God (as described by Christianity) then for the idea of a Giant Purple Space Goat. I won't bother with creating a list, but to throw a few points out: -In all non-Christian records of Jesus' timeperiod, there are exactly 11 mentions of Jesus' name, and exactly 11 mentions of the Roman emperor's name who reigned during that timeperiod. No one questions the existence of that Roman emperor; why then its Jesus' existence questioned? -The Bible. Everything listed above is weak, shaky proof that doesn't actually prove anything. However, from what I've studied, Christianity's ideas of there being a God seem to have a tad bit more logical support than other faiths/ideas. Certainly you could create your own weak, yet somewhat logical reasons for the existence of a Giant Purple Space Goat. However, the idea of a Christian God has enough logical support that I'm willing to consider speculation. Not that I speculate on such matters myself, but I'm not going to condemn someone immediately for speculating on the possibility of a Christian God. Then again, what constitutes as enough proof to consider an upper deity? That, I cannot define. The idea of a Christian God has more logical evidence supporting it than the Space Goat theory, but does that mean it has enough? Truth be told, I don't see a reason to bother defining such boundaries of "enough proof" solely for the reason of speculation. Ignore the rambling, I'm just trying to get my thoughts in writing, so that I can make sense of them. EDIT: In other words, I agree with Groovenstein now. This is my first interaction with other Objectivists, so I expected some amount of stumbling through ideas.

As I see it, there very well could be a God. Based on the knowledge that we have at the current moment, however, one can not make the rational claim that such a deity exists; furthermore, they can not prove it. Though I am somewhat new to Objectivism, it appears to me that Objectivists hate religion and other faith-based ideas. They don't have any problem, however, with the possibility of there being a God based on knowledge not currently known to man.