[Who do you "respect" more?]

Dammit. Double clicked again. Time for a new mouse.

[Who do you "respect" more?]

Its not like i respect either, but are there any others who "rank" regular christians higher than they do most of the atheists?

I agree with your post completely. In my experience, atheists are people who seem to have gotten only one thing right--that there is no God. From there, they seem to get just about everything else wrong: truth is whatever one thinks it is, morality is whaever your current level of social evolution says it is, liberty is whatever the state allows you to do, and the good is whatever others declare it to be. Discussions with such people never get anywhere because you cant even agree on simple definitions. I happen to know a number of christians who happen to be wrong on the existence of God, but are not so far from rational thinking on any number of issues.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

You are not going to run into many religious people who challenge the very existence of God. Most, like your friend Jason here, accept the existence of God as a given. So his response is really not all that uncommon and is actually fairly well thought out.

JASON:

Throughout history, philosophers have suggested other justifications for morality, but ultimately, any attempt to define morality outside of an absolute and objective source results in either a system of relativism or a system in which either the strongest or the majority get to define morality.

I think there is actually a lot of truth to that statement--particularly if you remove Objectivists from the ranks of atheists he is talking about. Virtually every atheist I have encountered has, in the process of rejecting God, rejected anything Godly as well. By Godly I mean only in terms of an objective source of morality. They wind up feeling that the moral is whatever feels good or whatever society decides. For me, I actually enjoy discussing morality with people like Jason. At least we can both agree that morality has some rational, objective foundation. It is the moral relativists that drive me crazy.

[Newt's Drill in America petition]

This petition is just another example of the false hope that someone like Newt Gingrich provides.

I disagree. Not only are most Americans unaware that we have such vast supplies of untapped resources here at home, more still are unaware that the government has made it illegal to exploit them. Gingrich, to his credit, has brought these issues to light, given Americans a forum to voice their outrage, and helped bring to the table an issue that clearly divides the two major parties during an election year.

The Republicans don't need Newt Gingrich to find their way

OK, so the Pelosi thing was pretty awful, but as far as Republicans go, who else is out there?

[Anti-Union Ads]

Unions are important because working hard is not going to get everyone promoted.

I would have bet no one could use the words "union" and "working hard" in the same sentence. Looks like I owe you a Coke.

[Newt's Drill in America petition]

Sorry. That should read 1 million.

[Newt's Drill in America petition]

More than 1,000,000 million signatures in about 3 weeks. More importantly, drilling for resources here in America is topic #1 on the political scene. Thanks to Newt, Republicans have found a way to get off the mat. Even McCain seems to be listening to reason (or potential voters) on this issue as it is reported he is rethinking his opposition to drilling in Anwar. Where would the Republicans be without Newt? It is hard to imagine that they would have won control of the House in '94 without him, and he leadership on this issue might be the only thing keeping the Dems from having a 435 seat majority.

[Roads]

Lets say RCX owns Hwy 1 between Washington and NYC, (with Hwy 1 being the most direct, most used and most dependable route) and RCX due to an Enron type implosion ceases to function one day what would happen. You would have us believe that RCX would be so vital, that that route is so necessary that the cost of that interruption would in some way cripple the functioning of the economy or society.

Chances are, the creditors of RCX would want Hwy 1 to continue to be open for business. I dont see why the road could not continue to be in use while the courts arrange for its auction.

[Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms]

Middle School in my city starts in 6th grade. That means the child in the story could be as young as 11 yrs old. I dont think we should expect a lot of resistance from such a young child, particulary against the very person they are supposed to be obedient toward--the teacher.

[Giving money to the homeless]

I think you are in the clear, altruism doesnt officially kick in until you give more than a quarter.

[Conservapedia's section on Objectivism and Atheism.]

I'm involved in a debate about atheism on one of the large conservative websites now. As I'm not familiar with the Bible, would any of you be able to provide me with some arguments against the following claims? They allegedly prove that the Bible includes predictions that have been proved historically accurate.

Just because the Bible contains many historical facts does not mean that the supernatural occurances related therein are also accurate. In fact, the inclusion of supernatural events in the Bible render it useless as a historical document. Once you mix fact with fantasy, it becomes impossible to know where one begins and the other ends. So in reality, you cant believe any of it unless it can be independently verified elsewhere. There may have in fact been a Herod and a Pontius Pilot, even a Jesus. So what? That does not prove either the existence of God or the truth of the Bible as a whole.

[Which candidate to vote for?]

This may be true in the short run, though I suspect it is exaggerated. The real question is not who will raise taxes more, but who is more likely to bring about a new dark age.

We've had 8 years of a religious conservative as president and during six of those years we had both houses of congress controlled by the dreaded religious Republicans, and unless I missed it, I dont see any evidence that we took any giant steps back toward the Dark Ages during that period. Not only that, the Republicans have now lost their majorities in both houses and seem on the brink of losing the White House as well. Even if McCain wins, he has no ties at all to the religous right, so they will be out of power regardless. What I fear from an Obama presidency coupled with a congress controlled by left-wing, environmentalist Democrats is enough hatred of industry to spark a return not to the Dark Ages, but to the Stone Age.

[Which candidate to vote for?]

If either of the two people who have so far selected Obama as worthy of their vote would care to step forward and explain their reasoning, I would be interested to hear it.

[A Plan for Objectivist Government]

Don't run from the muddleheads, convert them. Get them to live by reason.

I think that would be a good Rx were the patient not in such a deep moral and philosophical coma. If you are going to attempt to teach or lead, what better way is there than to teach or to lead by example? So I say if you can get enough people, go for it. It would be an interesting experiment if nothing else. It kind of reminds of Captain Kirk musing about the fate of Khan and his band of genetically superior comrades at the end of "Space Seed." After leaving them on Ceti Alpha 5, Kirk says something to the effect of: "It would be interesting to return here in 20 years to see what flower has bloomed from the seed we planted today."

Hopefully, things would turn out better for the 20 Objectivists than they did for Khan

[A Plan for Objectivist Government]

1) Why would I want to live in a town of (in the end) less than 40 people? I need to work, you know.

I live in a town of more that 50,000 people, yet I leave that town to go to work

2) You can rarely get 4 Objectivists to agree on where to go for lunch, let alone how to run a city government

I think the role of government is one thing most Objectivists do agree on.

3) The town government probably doesn't even exist outside of the mayor, who does nothing at all.

Perfect. So we wont have to make many changes to the infrastructure of the existing govt.

[Debate With A Socialist]

I kind of enjoy debating leftists like your friend here, but it can be exhausting and futile if you are unable to get them to focus. This guy has clearly swallowed every drop of the liberal/left-wing/marxist ideology, so rather than refute every sentence of his rant, you might want to keep the debate confined to the moral argument for capitlaism and individual liberty. If you dont get anywhere with that (and I doubt you will) then move on.

[Ok, so here's another rigged, extreme, impossible hypothetical]

I have a real problem with this line of thinking as it perpetuates the idea that value, and ethics still exists in situations where the meta-ethical basis, i.e. the founding need for ethics has been removed. If the problem is so impossibly constrained that reason is out the window, then so is ethics. There is no "should" in these situations. Anything goes.

While it is true that you cannot construct a code of ethics based upon emergency situations, why cant an existing code of ethics guide your behavior if you are confronted with an emergency? Maybe its just me, but I would expect a man who lives his life guided by certian principles, particularly Objectivist principles, to behave differently in an emergency situation than someone who has lived his life as an unprincipled creep. I would expect if it were an Objectivist trapped in the sub, he would say something to the effect of: "We have an hour and a half to fix this damn thing or we're both dead. Now lets get to work." I would not have imagined an Objectivist looking for the nearest blunt instrument to use to bash in the skull of the other person trapped with him, or booting a woman and her child off of one of Titanic's lifeboats to make room for himself.

I dont agree with the idea that "anything goes" when it comes to emergencies, How one behaves in an emergency tells you alot about that person. For example, if you learned that someone had survived the sub scenario by murdering the man trapped with him, would you view him as some sort of hero? Some sort of villain? Or would you withhold judgement? I would view him for exacly what he was--a murderer. How grim the situation may have been is no excuse in my mind. People do get confronted with unexpected emergencies. Some people emerge from those ordeals as heroic figures. I suspect that most of those who do so, simply adhered to the same set of principles during the emergency that they adhered to beforehand.

[Ok, so here's another rigged, extreme, impossible hypothetical]

What a disturbing thing to say. You have that little interest in your own life? You are willing to sacrifice your life for that of a stranger? Why would you do that?

I am not willing to sacrifice my life for a stranger, but I am not willing to sacrifice his life for mine either. I wasnt aware that when faced with death, Objectivists behave like savages. That is good to know. Were I ever unfortunate enough to be in such a scenario, I would hope my sub-mate thought the way you, and others here, do. I wouldnt murder you to insure my survival, but I would have no problem killing you if you came at me first.

[Ok, so here's another rigged, extreme, impossible hypothetical]

Here's my answer. If I was morally certain that someone had to die for the other to live, that the death would not be pointless anyhow, and the other person weren't a loved one, I'd quickly kill him in order to survive. And hope he didn't come to that same realization earlier than I did. Would you not do the same thing? If not, why not?

What a disturbing thing to say. Would I do the same thing? No. Why not? Because that would be murder. I will not choke the life out of someone whose only crime is having the misfortune of being trapped with me in a disabled sub. I value my own survival, but not at any cost.

[Newt's Drill in America petition]

Do electronic petitions ever really work?

I doubt any petition, no matter how many people sign it, will have any impact on those who oppose drilling in America. But enough signatures might help the republicans grow a spine on the issue.

[Newt's Drill in America petition]

Newt Gingrich has started a petition to pressure congress to open up America's own oil reserves for drilling.

http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncen...7b-346a1e096659

[Justification for war in the Middle-East]

Millions, as long as we have people that think we should throw our troops out like human shields to every tiny threat out there.

Millions??? Are you offering yourself up to be in the first wave of causualties? What do you suppose the purpose of our troops is? As far a tiny threats go, how much of a threat could, say, 19 men with box cutters and boarding passes possibly pose?

[most over/under-rated movies]

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced.

I think I am largely with you on that with a couple of noteable exceptions. Any time they air one of those old Sherlock Holmes movies from the 30's and 40's with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce I'm right there watching them. They are black and white, grainy--just as you would expect the Holmes era to look. And once you see Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, no one else can fill the role. Awesome.

[Justification for war in the Middle-East]

Absent 9/11, we would have never invaded Iraq. However in the aftermath of those attacks, this government had an obligation to pay greater attention to foreign threats as they were forming. Given Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists, etc..., the Bush administration should have been impeached if it ignored this threat.

I think that is exactly right. Based upon what we knew (or thought we knew) I think it would have been irresponsible for the president not to act. Yet, what we have this year is a candidate for president who would have done just that. The entire justification for the Barak Obama campaign was that it was he and he alone who "opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning." What he is saying is that in spite of 9/11, inspite of "Hussein's bellicose rhetoric, his attacks on our planes, his demonstrated willingness to use WMDS and the deceptive games he played with WMDS, his funding of terrorists," the overwhelming support of congress and the best judgement of the intelligence agencies, he would have done nothing. Well, probably not nothing. He would have given Saddam a face-to-face meeting at the White House perhaps after a State Dinner or something. I dont think this guy has the judgement to run a local Boy Scout troup let along the US government.

[Justification for war in the Middle-East]

there were no WMDs

That is a fact that only became certain after the invasion, not before. Prior to going into Iraq virtually every intelligence agency in the world believe Saddam was hiding WMD's. At the very least, he was not cooperating with the inspectors. In fact, if I remember right, he kicked them out of the country.