MisterSwig

Evangelist Pat Robertson has received much media attention this year by claiming to know God’s plan for hurting people and causing widespread devastation. You might recall that in January he said that God caused Ariel Sharon to have a heart attack as punishment for dividing the holy land. And now he is spouting more religious mumbo-jumbo, insisting that God told him we would have really bad weather this year. Clearly Pat Robertson is a complete idiot. I mean, why couldn't he hear the Lord clearly? Was God talking too softly? Robertson is an utter moron. So why does the mass media give him a spotlight every time he says something stupid on his little religious show? It's not like he bombed an abortion clinic or molested a choirboy. Do CNN and FOX believe that entertaining Robertson's insanity is newsworthy? I think they do. It seems that the popular media, whether they agree with Robertson or not, is responding to the rise of Christian culture. They are probably receiving increased demands for and interest in more coverage of religious news. It's not a good sign when the popular media tailors so much of its content to the seemingly insignificant, crystal ball-like ravings of the most radical Christian elements in our culture.

Another good essay on Rick Warren written by Objectivists is here.

First I want to state that I'm still at the initial stages of my thinking regarding the need for a psychological revolution. So, I'm open to being completely wrong about it. Having said that, I’m not convinced that everyone who accepts the fantasy of an indwelling God has rejected the Law of Identity. I put Christians into at least three different hierarchical classifications: those who believe the fairytales, those who believe the principles, and those who apply the principles. The worst kind of Christian is the type who is consistently applying the principles of Christianity (evangelists). And a decent Christian is the type who believes in some (maybe all) of the fairytales, but for whatever reason can’t or doesn’t take the principles seriously. People who can’t or don’t take the principles of Christianity seriously, they probably don’t even know what the Law of Identity is. They certainly haven’t explicitly rejected it. And I doubt that they've implicitly rejected it. Many ex-Christians, like myself, never rejected the Law of Identity in any sense. We believed in the Christian fantasies, but we didn’t wrap our arms around the principles. We didn't declare our great love for faith and our willingness to believe the Bible over the facts of reality. We kept searching for the truth about this world, even though we had absorbed some religious “truths” from our cultural upbringing. We took the world and our minds seriously. We were of course fooled into believing that something was true when it was not. But we never rejected the world or our mind. We didn't believe that contradictions were possible or that knowledge was impossible. It was our implicit acceptance of the Law of Identity that ultimately enabled us to identify and reject the fairytales we had mistakenly accepted--not on faith, but on authority. The rejection of religious fantasies is similar to the rejection of other popular fantasies that are pushed on us by our parents, fantasies such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. At a certain point the honest, informed individual realizes that he was wrong. It was all a scam perpetrated by those we love, admire, look up to, and rely on for knowledge. We made a mistake in taking the word of an authority figure. Would you say that a kid who still believes in Santa Claus has rejected the Law of Identity? I’d say that he is honestly mistaken. He has simply committed an error in thinking, due to the lies of his parents, who are his authority figures. Likewise, there are many young, honest Christians who have made similar mistakes and have yet to correct their intellectual errors, because they are not smart enough to intellectually challenge the rhetoric of their authority figures. Maybe they’ve never heard good arguments for atheism. Unless someone has consciously embraced the principles and habits of Christianity, I think there is still a decent chance that they are honestly mistaken and have not rejected the Law of Identity. This chance, of course, drops significantly depending on the level of their maturity and education. I wouldn’t, for example, claim that the typical, middle-aged “born again” churchgoing Christian is honestly mistaken. As I said in my paper, the regular churchgoer is probably a lost cause. But what about the millions of unchurched Christians who have secular jobs, secular friendships, secular hobbies, who don't take religion very seriously, and who have to be forcibly taxed by our government before they will "willingly" sacrifice for faith-based initiatives? Are they a lost cause? Or might a rational psychology help them to correct their understanding of their own soul by making perfectly clear to them a contradiction between the facts of their consciousness and the fantasy of God? And would this knowledge then help them to reject Christianity? I don't see why it wouldn't, if the subject is honest. I see your point about the lack of logical structure. That is something I'll have to work on. Thanks for noticing it.

I too noticed this story when it happened. A few points: 1. I never take a Christian fundamentalist's word for granted. If they tell me that they had a hamburger for lunch, I'm skeptical. Seriously. Their brains are so full of lies and confused ideas that the probability of truth slipping from their lips is very low. I would not place my money on her accurately conveying her experience with this criminal. When a story is largely built upon the utterances of a Christian fundamentalist who has been reading Rick Warren to a mass murderer, I consider it pretty much worthless and unreliable as to the facts of the case. 2. I submit that the woman could have read Atlas Shrugged to her attacker, and he still wouldn't have pulled the trigger. He didn't want to kill her. He simply wanted to talk to someone and eat real food and watch TV and "do normal things that normal people do" before he had to go back to jail. It's right there in the story--plain as day. She could have read Cat in the Hat, and that guy still would have ultimately given in to her request that she be allowed to pick up her daughter from church. All she had to do was talk to him a bit and cook him some pancakes. 3. Finally, notice the truly disgusting implication of her words when she tells the reporter: "I said [to him], 'Do you believe in miracles? Because if you don't believe in miracles -- you are here for a reason. You're here in my apartment for some reason. You got out of that courthouse with police everywhere, and you don't think that's a miracle?" She's basically saying that it was God's will for this bastard to murder a judge, a court reporter, a deputy, and a federal agent so that he could escape from the courtroom and be divinely guided to her apartment so that he could learn about the miracle of God's will for him. How horrific is that?

Hi all, I’ve published my fourth paper on the threat of religious dictatorship in America. It’s called Rick Warren: Master Assimilator for the Christian Collective, and you can find it in the Essays section here at Objectivism Online or at my personal Web site. The bulk of this paper examines the psychology and tactics of the predatory, collectivistic evangelist. I also address the question of how Christianity has survived and now resurged in the face of all the revolutionary, scientific advancements since Galileo. And in the end I offer my initial thoughts on a possible solution to the widespread problem of Christian collectivism. It’s a long article with a lot of things to say about Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Life has now sold over 25 million copies, making it the all-time bestselling nonfiction hardback in American history. I hope you’ll check it out and let me know what you think. I’m currently re-editing all of the articles in this series, with the aim of compiling them into a future book for a more general audience, and I would appreciate any criticisms or comments you have. Thanks.

Interesting question. I think that the rational faculty is present from the moment of birth. However, like perhaps any human faculty, it does not work at the highest levels right away. Just because we don't pop out of the womb and start ballroom dancing, that doesn't mean we lack motor faculties. Similarly, just because we don't begin by delivering a speech to the hospital staff, that doesn't mean we lack the faculty of reason. All it means is that, as infants, we haven't had adequate time to use, develop, and master our natural faculties.

By "rational" I mean possessing the faculty of reason. And by "independent" I mean physically separated from the mother's body. A newborn infant possesses the right to its own life, because it is an independent and rational animal, like you and me. My position is that a fetus has no rights, but a newborn child does. I have argued for this view across many previous posts.

Ah, but a caterpillar is not a butterfly! Similarly, a fetus is not a human being. King Tut's mummified remains are also homo sapien. Does the long dead King Tut thus possess human rights? Answer: no. Homo sapien-ness does not grant one the right to life. Being an independent and rational animal does.

Yes, there was something wrong. You gained values by deceiving others. You gained/kept your family's love and respect by fooling them into believing you're a good communion-taking Catholic. And you gained your girlfriend's love and affection by fooling her, too. It is not right to deceive others like that. You are robbing them of the little they still deserve from you: honesty. You aren't helping yourself either. You would achieve more happiness if you focused your energy on finding friends and family members who are open to rational ideas like atheism. If you're worried about your family disowning you or giving you a hard time for being an atheist, then you should compare that to a life of defrauding your loved ones. Which do you think is worse?

When I understood the objectivity and relational nature of human values. Up to that point I was able to shake off my childhood belief in God and faith, but not my deeply rooted Christian-based value system.

My guess is that Snape is actually the one who discovered a way to save baby Harry from being killed by Voldemort. And this redeemed him in Dumbledore's eyes. For, the only way to be forgiven for telling Voldemort about the prophecy and endangering Harry was to find a way to save Harry's life. Snape may have invented a very powerful protection spell or potion for the baby Harry. We know from book six that Snape was a genius at potions and even invented new spells. I just don't buy the vague "love conquers all" crap reason for Harry surviving Voldemort's curse. I think Dumbledore gave Harry that explanation because he could not tell Harry the whole truth--that Snape saved his life. What if the Dark Lord read Harry's mind and figured out that Snape was really on Dumbledore's side from the beginning? It's crucial that Harry does not know the whole truth about Snape, in case Harry's mind is violated by Voldemort. I think that Dumbledore told Snape to do whatever is necessary to stay in the Dark Lord's good graces, even if it means killing Dumbledore. It is more important to find out where the Horcruxes are than to save Dumbledore's life. Long live Snape!

Of course the Pope is going to say this. It's his job to get you to give up material things for the sake of Christianity. Personally, though, I wouldn't trust the Pope if he told me that he had chicken for dinner. Of all people in the world, the Pope is the last person you should trust to tell you what he actually believes. Now, I'm more inclined to trust the author of the Harry Potter books. J.K. Rowling is a Christian. And I find it very difficult to believe that she, being a bright woman, would write anything that could be construed as fundamentally at odds with her own religion. In fact, I believe some (Objectivist) Harry Potter fans may be in for a rude awakening once Rowling ends the series in the seventh book. Consider what she said in this interview: Hrm ... How could knowing her religious beliefs tell us what's coming in the books? Are we in for a little Christian ethical lesson? I guess we'll find out.

Because a retreat is still understood to be a retreat from the enemy whom you will fight another day. You retreat in order to regroup and restrategize. That is the purpose of retreating. Otherwise, you might as well surrender or die. Now, I'm not saying that we will miraculously arrive at the right strategy next time. But I don't see how our next strategy could be any worse than what we have now. The reason to retreat is to set the context for restrategizing. This country needs to begin thinking again. We need real choices. Debate. Right now, we are caught up in the blind momentum of Bush-based faith and sacrifice. And there's nowhere to go but deeper and deeper into the bloodbath, until all of America is a battleground in this epic rematch between Christianity and Islam. We need to pull ourselves away from this blind faith and start questioning again.

Nothing you linked to supports your assertion that Harry Potter is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.

Christianity works to erode the soul, not occupy it. So anything that erodes Christianity is a blessing. With that said, I can't find anything in the Harry Potter series that can seriously compete with Christianity. Everyone knows--now--that wizards don't really exist. So the Bible's command to kill wizards is pretty pointless in our modern world--thus the wizard Harry represents no threat to the Church. If Harry was a real threat to the Church, there would be much, much stronger language coming out of the Vatican. What Harry Potter represents is temporary, false idol worship, which the Church has been dealing with since its inception. Harry Potter is not a long term threat to the Bible, because it is only fiction, and the hero is not clearly and fundamentally at odds with the morality of the Bible. He's a wizard, but he's not an egoist. And he's certainly not anti-supernaturalism or anti-faith.

I do. The West does not hate itself as much as the Middle East--not yet, anyway. And, overall, we are still more confident and rational than them. Islamic fundamentalism does not arise from an abundance of self-love, self-confidence, and rationality. We may pull out, but it won't be because we are riddled with self-doubt. It will be because we are tired of getting our asses handed to us on foreign soil. Pulling out may be the best thing we could do right now, until we are sufficiently motivated to at least declare formal, open war on some Middle Eastern dictatorship--and sufficiently willing to do what needs to be done to win the war. Fleeing is not the end of the world. It is usually the sign of a rational assessment of the situation at hand. It is a survival mechanism. It is our current faith-based administration that is blindly leading us into the pit of suicide. Those calling for withdrawal may be our only hope. For, once we withdraw, there will only be one place to go: back to the drawing board.

Just because you were sold a book before its release date, that shouldn't make you a criminal. It doesn't even make the bookstore a criminal. I worked for a Borders bookstore. If it's proven that your store sold a book before its release date, your store at most may have to, by contract, pay a fine to the publisher, at worst you'll be placed low, low on the priority list of stores to receive in the future what's called "laydown" copies of bestsellers--books that you must keep in unopened boxes in your storeroom until the release date. If bookstores could be criminally prosecuted for early sales of laydown titles, I don't think you'd see very many major bookstores accept shipment of such titles. Can you imagine a Borders manager being held criminally responsible for his staff selling a Harry Potter book before the release date? I don't think so. I even doubt whether shipper's would agree to ship them before the release date. Depending on the severity of the punishment, those books might sit in the publisher's warehouse until UPS agreed to pick them up on the release date--for fear of criminal prosecution. Supposing a book is sold before its release date, I don't think that the buyer has the right to keep the book, because the book was sold to that person in violation of the agreement between the store and the publisher. The publisher has the right to demand the book back. However, I don't think the publisher has the right to legally prevent you from reading that book, unless they print on the book somewhere that you can't read it until a certain date--which would be ridiculous. It is unreasonable to expect a buyer to not read his book. And it is also unreasonable to expect a buyer to check the nightly news for information about a business contract between a publisher and a bookstore. So the buyer might be completely ignorant of when the actual release date was. It is reasonable to believe that when a bookstore sells you something, that bookstore has permission to do so from the publisher. In fact, most people don't even think about things like that.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. EITHER: The Iraqi government represents the whole of Iraq, in which case we are justified in holding them responsible for their people's terrorist war against us. OR: The Iraqi government does not represent the whole of Iraq, in which case we are justified in leveling hostile areas in the Red Zone until those who do represent the rest of Iraq surrender.

This is not what religions like Judaism or Christianity believe. They believe that the universe (reality) had to be created by a supreme consciousness (God). They believe in the primacy of consciousness. Objectivists believe in the primacy of existence. Objectivism and religion are fundamentally and completely incompatible, starting at the metaphysical level.

In between battles I have lots of sex with my girlfriend. It is rational to defend yourself against your attackers. That's not true. Have you heard of a concept called "force?" Force is what irrational people use to stop and destroy rational people.

I think you have a mistaken understanding of the mind-body dichotomy. It has nothing to do with physical appearance or moral character. It has to do with one's mind and one's body being unintegrated entities that are in opposition to one another. Since there is no mind-body dichotomy in reality, that means that your mind and your body are integrated. One cannot survive without the other. However, it doesn't mean that your physical appearance and your moral character are the same thing (or "not separate things"). It doesn't mean that your moral character is magically manifested into your physical appearance. There are several reasons for one's physical appearance, including genes, diet, exercise, grooming. Are you going to tell me that bad people can't be physically attractive? Also, your previous STD example does not support your case. You seem to think that one could deduce a man's "slutness" from observing the "ugly bumps around his eyes." But has it occured to you that non-sluts get STDs too? Or that there may be other reasons for having bumps around the eyes? Perhaps these bumps would suggest a few pointed questions to ask your potential lover. But I don't see how you could objectively conclude that they are the symbols of sluthood.

The purpose of my blog is to communicate my ideas to others. I use all sorts of media to achieve this goal. Posting and blogging here is one of them.

Reality is not independent of mind. Our mind is part of reality. It exists. I suggest you re-evaluate your position with this in mind. Or at least make an argument for reality being independent of mind.

I haven't noticed this. Objectivists are generally the happiest people I know. If by "negative" you mean we point out irrational and evil people, then you should understand that that's only a part of identifying your enemy when you're fighting a cultural war.

First of all, this thread is about metal music, and it's located in the aesthetics forum. Thus one might ask: Why did Andy_X69 feel compelled to tell us his opinion of Ayn Rand's personal behavior in this aesthetics thread on metal music? Does this have anything to do with his enjoyment of "monstrously nihilistic art?" I don't think so. That single Rand-bashing paragraph (which I quoted) is monstrously placed and reveals Andy_X69's nihilistic purpose for being here. If you read his post carefully, you'll notice that that paragraph has no objective relationship to the rest of his post. Its sole purpose is to inject his anti-Rand rhetoric into this forum. And I strongly object to such behavior--especially when Andy_X69 offers absolutely no evidence for his assertion. Indeed, his only attempt at proof is a clear straw man. He claims that Rand "preached cognitive independence as a virtue, yet punished any dissent with excommunication." Any serious "post-Objectivist" such as Andy_X69 should know that Rand did not preach "cognitive independence as a virtue." What she did teach was that "rationality" and "independence" were two separate, distinct virtues. Nowhere does she identify "cognitive independence" as a virtue. It's not too clear what Andy_X69 actually means by "cognitive independence." I don't know where that term comes from. But if he means something like "free will," then he should also know, as a "post-Objectivist," that Rand held free will (or volition) as an axiom, not a virtue. It seems clear to me that Andy_X69 is still upset, for whatever reason, that Ayn Rand exercised her right to disassociate herself from certain people. And now he has come here to inject periodically his unsupported opinion that Ayn Rand was "unreasonable." That is why I called Andy_X69 a Rand-basher. His post contains an unsupported, fallacious attack on Rand's character. P.S. I also want to point out that even if Andy_X69 defines "cognitive independence" in the same way that Rand defines "independence," his statement still contains another straw man. For, Rand did not punish "any dissent with excommunication." She continued many relationships with all sorts of people who did not agree with her on certain issues. What she did do, however, was disassociate herself from the people whom she judged to be bad for her and her philosophical movement.