chuff

Probably not, from how you describe it. I wouldn't participate because it would not follow these forum rules: You may find it extremely difficult to start a thread about "Why ctrl y Thinks Christianity Is Better Than Objectivism" without ignoring one or both of these rules. edited to add: @ctrl y, Don't get me wrong. Each of the topics this thread was almost about would make good threads (and most of them probably already have).

My patience with the OP of this thread has worn thin. Until ctrl y decides what to make this thread about, and stop dragging every responder all over the place, I refuse to continue participating. Here's a short summation of some of the things he has made this thread about: 1. A "kind" sharing of a religious critique of Objectivism. 2. Basically spouting a long list of recent news in the apologetics world, and telling us Objectivism systematically fails because Objectivists don't respond to every little claim mystics make. 3. Pdf-dropping, the first time for some fine-tuning argument. Then backing off of this entirely by diplomatically stating that the fine tuning argument isn't related to theism (doesn't necessitate an agent setting them, but just that they fall in a range). 4. Admitting you don't know what Primacy of Existence and Primacy of Consciousness even mean (this one should be first choice for you if you think you ever understood Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology...) 5. Proposing that there are no foundations to knowledge.**** 6. Proposing a "if it seems true, it's true" epistemology... Which makes all religions and all other truth claims true, even if they directly contradict, as long as it seems true to the person proposing it. It renders logic useless because contradiction doesn't matter anymore. In short, nonsense. 7. Claiming that "he's not here to convert people away from Objectivism,"* even offering for the thread to be closed if it looks that way, then admitting to taking on the task of "shaking our confidence" in Objectivist epistemology**. 8. Purporting that the universe is "impossible" without a God existing, too. 9. Dismissing us to go read Swinburne while refusing to bring any of the arguments to us. 10. Making your only mission for the thread out to be pointing out that it's academically respectable (why would that be conclusive in any way to an Objectivist?) to believe in God and that there's "lots of literature." ...Okay? 11. Demonstrating a general ignorance of fundamental Objectivist stances toward religion, God and mysticism, then claiming to have the perfect refutation of them. Cases in point: #4 above, the whole definition of "Arbitrary" boondoggle, that examination of any definition of God by means of reason is fruitless*** 12. Complaining about the writing style in ITOE and calling out the entire Objectivist theory of concepts as lacking 13. Whining that: "People here apparently believe that they have a method of reaching the truth, "reducing concepts to reality," which all knowledge must conform to." Yeah, we claim to an epistemology. 14. Arbitrarily deciding that he doesn't have to define God, and choosing dictatorially that we are talking about epistemology only. 15. Claiming the foundation of science is Christianity, and elsewhere that "science depends on a worldview like Christianity." (...) 16. Telling Dante to clarify a position he took in a thread about something else. ***** This nonsense about weak foundationalism should have been over when the OP stated that "under weak foundationalism, you would be justified in believing weak foundationalism is false." The fact that no problem could be seen there betrays a fundamental ignorance or a willful misuse (much more probable) of the process of logic. Sorry, buddy, it does. Pick one of these. When you meet a fundamental disagreement, don't just keep telling us you disagree again and again. Leave. If you choose to stay, make an actual case for your position. And for the love of whatever God you think seems real today, stay on topic. Someone needs to lead you through a series of the question "Why?" over and over, and hopefully when it leads you to a shrug of your shoulders, you'll realize how weak your foundation is. Think of it this way: in the case of the Swinburne book. If you: a ) brought the arguments to us, b ) heard our responses, and c ) saw that you fundamentally disagree with us somewhere, don't make the thread go on for 89 pages by insisting on saying "nuh uh" and "well we disagree then" to every post we make. Create a new thread about the fundamental, and discuss that there. Stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. Again, I may be speaking for myself only, but in my opinion, you're being extremely rude by doing all of this. * http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276563 ** http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276635 *** http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276592 **** http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276660 , http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276672 ***** http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21941&view=findpost&p=276680 tl;dr The OP needs to pick something to talk about to warrant my participation. Otherwise this will turn into another one of those "But what about? But what about? But what about?" threads again. I don't believe that the OP is willing to be reasoned with on these topics, nor that he actually wants our opinions or our feedback.

What epistemology did you use to determine that what you "justifiably" believe in is not true? Whether an idea is true is verified outside your own mind. You don't just get to decide what you think is true or not and that belief suddenly be what is true. That would be the absence of an epistemology. If you apply this "if it seems true, it is" nonsense to every claim, I think you'll find it works against you in attempting to "prove" something you believe or "argue a case" for something you believe. Under your epistemology, whatever seems true to me, is. It's pure subjectivism: as you said before, two different people can believe contradictory things and both be right. Don't try to call it something else.

Again I am writing quickly during a class, so I apologize for any seemingly abrupt statements. The root of our disagreement is that you are proposing a means of knowledge apart from the senses and/or reason, which is how Rand defined mysticism. Displacing our confidence onto an epistemic system of mysticism will be challenging indeed. In addition, the current complaint is not that God cannot be observed with the senses, it is that definitions of God or proposals of any supernatural entity definitionally "rest on a false metaphysical premise;" (Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2.). In other words, the arbitrariness of propositions of a God, meaning they are proposed with neither perceptual nor conceptual evidence (Paraphrase of Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism,” lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.) I hate to quote-bomb you, but you seem to still misunderstand what is meant by "claims for God are arbitrary." This new claim of yours may be grounds for a new thread. I'll leave that to you as OP and moderators. Something to ponder in regard to it regardless: Why must claims about potential existents in question be reduced to the self-evident data of sense? The existence of the entity in question in physical reality needs a definition (which hasn't appeared), and needs sense data to support it before becoming tenable. When one declares that sense data is impossible in regard to that entity, it is this declaration that renders his proposition arbitrary. "This seems true to me; therefore, my acceptance of its truth is rational" is indeed a shockingly weak formulation in terms of its rationality... Again, the claim that an entity called "God" exists must have a non-contradictory (i.e., logical) definition of God. That God seems to exist to you does not justify theism. Talk about weak foundations!

I'm sorry that it seems absurd to you. For a person to say these many people are wrong and I am right is not per se absurd. Consider what would make it absurd, namely, if the many were correct. And how do we determine truth? Very important stuff here in your approach. The Creationists are absurd because they hold to arbitrary assertions and claim that the findings of science are beneath them. I don't know how much of Objectivism's reasons for atheism you have read, but this idea of reasonable examination made fruitless from the start was clear to me when I first read it. (pp 30-33 in OPAR are helpful, as well as I believe "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," which can be found in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.) The point 2046 is making is that Objectivism does not have a "hole" or a "problem" simply because it doesn't answer to every arbitrary assertion about a deity or about some supernatural something-or-other. The philosophy of Objectivism is not about taking an authority's word for it. Your approach is where you are at fault. You want some *one* to convince you that an arbitrary assertion is not true. Knowing what you know about the burden of proof, you ought to bring the specific argument to this forum and ask us to analyze the formulation.

I know you know this, but to remind you: (1) Rigor is not truth. and (2) The question of whether the existence of a god is arbitrary is not determined by how many academics support or recognize the proposition. Neither is controversy the standard of the coherence or arbitrariness of a claim. The claim as I understand it does not need to be examined, because it presupposes that examination by reason will be fruitless. This is what makes the claim arbitrary. It is set up in such a way to make it so. This, I think, is where people are coming from here. In addition, the point made earlier by 2046 is key here: [edited to add]

That is pretty rude. Bring the discussion and the arguments here, don't make us chase you around.

To me, this smacks of "I will not even consider the possibility that my current position is incorrect." This is backwards. Reason must be given to think it is coherent. And since theistic definitions always exclude outright any rational coherence, it is an arbitrary proposition.

The way that I respond to this is, no matter how long you are told you have remaining to live, that still is time alive, i.e., there will still be some amount of time left to live. Since man, to live, needs values, and must act rationally to pursue them, ethics is still just as applicable then (assuming freedom of choice etc) as it is when you are alive and don't suspect imminent death. I hope my thoughts here came across clearly, I'm writing them very quickly.

I'm going have a go at your question. First of all, the very important and serious purpose behind activities you enjoy (aside from your own happiness, which is integral) is productive work. It's the very purpose of man's life, and happiness is the "successful state of life," which you gain from the attainment of values. The attainment of those values is virtue, which comes from the use of your mind. Far from considering things that might not be considered a "job" as non-productive simply because they aren't career-oriented with tangible results (like an iron bar), I suggest you think more of them in terms of what they do for you, in particular your mental state. Others have mentioned sport and other such things as beneficial for your body, for your ability to cope and relate with others, and just as a recreation to appreciate the things you have done. This is what is so important about treating yourself. There seems to be a strong parallel between getting a reward you don't deserve and a resulting negative emotional state. The thing about having sex with "girls" is that sex is not supposed to be meaningless. It is supposed to represent your values and your recognition of those values in another person (cf. love). The feelings of physical pleasure that are gained from the mere act of sex can be recreated without another human being, given the right tools. The experience of sex involves more than just nice feelings. An extremely important quote on sex is the following one: -Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual Most of my response I gleaned from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, which it would be good for you to read, in particular the following entries: Productiveness Loneliness Sex Love I'll end with a great quote from Rand in the "Loneliness" entry that I think is relevant:

Xbox Live gamertag: Iron Chuff I play on Live basically three or four nights a week. Halo: Reach Halo 3 Modern Warfare 2 Black Ops (occasionally)

Ms. Clara told me to email them to her as they become available. I have emailed her the first available episode, Episode 6

Only a few of them are ready. @softwarenerd i pmed you

And here is the disclaimer he wrote for us:

I heard back from Dr. Peikoff a week ago: He attached a .doc file to this email. And then again from him today: I could use some help in answering his questions.

I agree here. Each post need not have the same assumed knowledge; it could be "for more about rational self-interest, read VOS," etc.

I'm shocked that you would suggest such a thing.

I retract my statement in light of evidence of which I was previously unaware.

Thought policing?

My thoughts: Just this week in my home state texting while driving has been illegal. Infringements of this kind are imminent once "pre-emptive force" is enough for a new law. Soon, I'm sure, talking on the telephone will be illegal while driving; but why stop there? Really, not being tongue-in-cheek, what is the reason for stopping there? Eating a burger or taking a swig of the last sip from a Coke can keeps you from operating the car at full efficiency; should these also be something cops should use their time to keep you from doing? Plus it makes people criminals for texting in their cars while operating it. It's not the actual damage you've done that you must pay for. It is the fact that you were in your car's driver seat while it was moving and you were texting. The DUI law sets a standard of BAC that not every body works with. Some people with low alcohol tolerance will have a BAC below DUI level and still drive dangerously. Others who have much higher tolerance can operate the vehicle normally with above the accepted BAC.

How are there used copies available on Amazon?

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Is there a way to hide the post with the transcripts in them?

I've already done Episode 30 and Episode 112. I've also done Episode 12. I asked a member who wanted to help in any way he could to do Episode 11. I'll await both his Episode and the status on the first five episodes before continuing posting them, so that they aren't out of order and will force me to go back and edit each post to be the one before it, etc.

I second this idea, as it's a great one. Also, this could be the thread for posting errors found in them that need editing.

I have created such a thread. I foolishly went ahead and posted several without the new log-in that can edit old posts. If you would not mind setting such a one up, I would be grateful.