Q.E.D.

I do not understand how the existence of a creator would mandate worship. Similarly, children need not worship parents. Its a mixture of fear of death/nature, collectivist thinking, and psychosis that inspires religious fervor.

Your criticism applies to utilizing public IRC networks as opposed to creating a personal IRC server for the use of objectivismonline. However, it is true that some people may not be able to connect to an IRC network from behind a corporate firewall (without some extra measures taken). This isn't really an issue for ObjectivismOnline, but for the employee who wishes to chat on IRC during work hours.

That design is great until your half asleep roommate tries to pour water and coffee grounds into the top.

I've been studying QM in school for awhile, and it seems that the more you know about QM the harder it makes a rational interpretation. The way I imagine the quantum mechanics of a particle is that everything is made up of a giant smooshy-cloud that pervades spacetime, observing the particle causes the cloud to recede within the limits of the observation, at which time the cloud begins to spread again. I don't have a problem asking whether electron exists, because the electron is the cloud with wave-particle properties. From a slightly deeper perspective, the electron may be thought of as a ripple in an electron-positron field which interacts with the electromagnetic field by way of ripples in that field. I find it hard to discuss which dogmatic coloringbook style story is right, because I don't follow any of them. I look at the mathematics and I try to figure out a causal rule for picturing it in my brain that corresponds with what happens, and that is how one interprets QM in my opinion.

Asking "Who painted the painter" should be rephrased into a proper nullification. The existence of a creator relies upon the existence of causality. That is, something that exists causes another thing to exist. A painting is created by a painter or a proton-electron pair may come from a decaying neutron. When one speaks of accepting causality as an axiom, what one is really saying is the universe moves from one state into another state, or a clock ticks from one state into another state. Thus causality may suggest that if it is 3:30 on the clock, at some time in the past the clock should have read 2:30. Similarly, the existence of the universe in the present state suggests that the universe existed previously in a different state. However, this is the ONLY thing that causality (properly defined) implies. Causality may be phrased in at least two ways: reality exists with its own definite properties or the universe as we see it follows a logical/ordered pattern. We observe causality applying to existing objects in reality or we conclude that the existence of observable reality implies causality. Reality and causality are bound together. Outside of reality there is no causality. The only place non-causality may exist is within a conscious entity's mind. It's no coincidence that where causality exists, gods do not. Finally, for causality to apply to a creator, the creator MUST exist. However, creation postulates that things may not exist without a creator. Thus the CREATOR MUST HAVE CREATED HIMSELF! Further, the causality that we know and I've laid out above does not apply to entities that do not exist. Therefore it is proven that the existence of a creator does not follow from logic and is thus arbitrary. After explaining this (preferably with a diagram instead of boring paragraphs) one may then refer the questioner to the principle that the onus of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.

The trick to making a friend is to show a strong interest in the potential friend. Tell people when you admire their values and try to further conversation by allowing the other person to talk and express THEIR ideas. The more talking they do, the better a conversationalist they will think you are. The best friendships will come between people for whom strong interest (similar values) is not a problem. Also, learn not to argue with people directly. Always use tact when possible, because there is almost always a way to get your point across without isolating, abusing, or creating tension. Don't go out LOOKING for values in the definite sense. Just stick to your values and find people that seem receptive and interesting and you'll find people with values you respect.

You can also try to explain your situation to your father. He might confuse your general aversion to lying with laziness, spite, or some nameless fuck-you-dad. I'm sure he won't evaluate the situation on rational terms unless you walk him through it.

In my experience, a lot of people don't understand the 'mechanics' of evolution. How can 'random' mutations inevitably drive the generation of species? It is for the same reason that random hands of cards net casinos substantial profits. There's a bias. In the genetic case the bias is towards that which fits the environment. One doesn't look at the probability of every event in history having happened and remark that because the probability of history having happened is very small that history must not have happened. That is a paradoxical insanity that must be purged from human thought. However, I'd go a step further to argue that the eye is evidence for a NON intelligent designer. Why does the existence of the eye contradict the principle of intelligent design? If you look at the eyes of all the different species on earth you'll start to notice fundamental similarities. Obviously, many creatures have eyes very similar to our own, and nearly as obviously the exact makeup of their eyes differ in classifiable ways. The animals evolutionarily similar to us also tend to have eyes similar to ours. Coincidence? Of course not. It seems that the blandness and homogeneity of observed nature contradicts the theory that the universe has a conscious, creative, intelligent creator. I mean really, how lazy do religious people permit their god to be before they realize he hasn't showed up for work? Entropy actually implies the creation of new species. If there are more species, the system is less ordered. It takes more information to describe the system, so there's more entropy. In theory, entropy can be measured and represented in bytes (its just really complex). EDIT: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." ~ Douglas Adams

While I've not managed to solve the problem entirely for myself, I did attend a lecture on psychological breakdown. The essential idea is that when you're in these 'stressful' situations you begin to instantiate your tension as self-doubt and criticism. The key is to analyze the situation, identify the stress-causer, and to apply that psychological energy towards reducing the stress in a positive way. Most often this practice involves establishing what is important to you and neglecting that which isn't. The example my professor gave is that he came home one night, the dishes he asked his son to do weren't done, and he had to give a talk later on that evening. After washing some dishes and berating his son and bemoaning the position in his head, he realized that he was stressed out about the talk he had to give, and instead decided to find some ways to prepare for it. This reduced his stress, and calmed him down. I think your issue is similar, but more long-term in nature. It will take more work and more reflection, but hopefully you can make some progress on identifying stress-causers and eliminating them. Some examples could be not fully applying yourself to your goals, having unreasonable expectations for yourself, allowing your work to dominate your personal life, or you name it.

If the person will not stop sending you gifts after multiple requests, you may want to contact a local police officer and inform him of your dilemma. Anti-social persons have been known to give gifts to potential victims to validate their abuse. While I do not think that it is necessary to go to any special trouble to return the gifts, you must notify the sender whether or not the gifts are acceptable. Be careful.

Speaking in terms of natural science, destruction is a form of creation. The 'observation' of a system does perturb it, but those perturbations, including the ones introduced by us, are also a part of the system. We do change/destroy systems that we observe, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't observe them, it's just a non-meaningful by-product of science.

I am fairly sure I suffered from narcissistic personality disorder during my teenage years, so I will speak from my experience. Narcissism enables a victim to cope with low self esteem by way of conceited thoughts and behaviors. The less confidence a narcissist has in his own person, the more he will try to assert his tentative superiority over others. This condition is related to other self aggrandizing personality disorders such as sociopathy and borderline personality disorder. This kind of characterization of Ayn Rand's "anti-social" characters doesn't really fit, because all of her characters have extraordinary self-esteem.

I hadn't thought of it that way. I'll have to rethink things, but I never thought of rights as something one must demand. I guess my assertion that hurting animals needlessly is a bad thing doesn't really relate to rights, but something else entirely.

Sorry, I did not mean to have an aggressive tone or to seem as though I was shouting. I had to look up the non-mathematical meaning of induction, and I agree that induction is how I would determine that you have consciousness, but the definition I found is important: Its a spectacularly good guess that you're conscious, but it cannot prove such a statement with logical certainty from my own perspective. That's induction as I understand it. Also, I'd never suggest that animals are as conscious or as intelligent as human beings. They definitely don't deserve human rights, but I think that more intelligent species do deserve some kinds of limited rights, although our society has already given some animals more rights than they deserve.

Why do you think so much about all this stuff? Just date the man, and if some day you want to get married do it. That's all that's to it. Also, by Moradin's Beard, please try to be more concise, no one has time to read that much!

Emotional Intelligence IS NOT Intelligence itself. I've read that women of the classical kind of intelligence actually have trouble having orgasms. I really don't like that the article confuses being socially comfortable and being able to understand abstract reasoning.

The commercial I saw for Google chrome was pretty funny, check it out sometime.

As far as Spore's programmers are concerned, one must take into account that the biological rules themselves evolved until the point that they were self sustaining. Evolution is like running a casino, the bias towards self-sustaining organisms is bound to produce positive results. I read an interesting article in my English class about how the fishing industry is going to have to start throwing back the biggest fish they catch. By throwing back only the small fish they've made it very hard on themselves because fish have adapted to only grow to smaller sizes. The solution presented in the essay of course is to only go after medium-sized fish.

It really seems to me that in the global warming debate people just cite whatever group of bad scientists they need to back up their political beliefs. I can accept that global warming is not necessarily a political issue. However, I'm going to have to continue looking into the situation before I can draw my own conclusion. It does seem that a very large number of scientists that I hold in high regard claim that global warming is man made. I think its important to separate the philosophy from the scientific conclusion, whether or not global warming exists. Nature isn't guaranteed to produce perfect conditions for human living, and that means that objective ideas may not necessarily receive optimal conditions in nature. We must get past this.

I don't understand the assertion that a successful predictive theory is meaningless. Nonetheless, there is a misconception about Quantum Theory I'd like to point out. {My interpretation will always be Copenhagen} The "meaning" of Quantum Theory is not that every system is unpredictable, its just that many systems have an infinite number of "eigenstates" which a quanto-particle may inhabit, UNTIL AN OBSERVATION IS MADE. After an observation has been made, the quanto-particle is then confined to a much smaller number of eigenstates. If you put the quanto-particle into a single eigenstate, you should then be able to predict quite certainly what the time evolution of the quanto-particle's state will be. Observable [Linear Momentum] Associated Operator [P = -i*h*d/dx] Possible Value for Momentum [p] Electron eigenstate [s] Ps = ps[/code] Examples here This equation says that if you find the electron has the momentum "a", then you are able to find the eigenstate or eigenvector "s" associated with that state. Once you put the electron into a single eigenstate, from that point forward the electron's state evolves deterministically, allowing for the kind of "prediction" you are asking for. The "probability" aspect of QM isn't a failure; its the way the universe IS. Reality doesn't care if it makes no intuitive sense to us or not, that's just how it is.

It's not easy, but the best way is to talk to her about things, and to lead by example. Casually read news, science, cultural articles to her and then analyze them. If you have fun talking to her, your thinking will rub off on her in more ways then you'll ever realize. I hope it all works out. WARNING: DO NOT ATTACK HER IDEAS OR YOU'LL LOSE HER.

I am not trying to be a troll. I'm trying to get to the heart of the issue: What is the principle that excludes other intelligent entities from having any rights? I'm sorry I haven't as much knowledge of your position as you do, and maybe I should be a little more careful in my arguments. However, there's a logical hole here that we need to fill before I can feel comfortable. [Please also consider that this is the DEBATE section, and not the agreement section]

Monkeys have been known to go nuts if you cut open dead monkeys in their presence. Males will also try to attack you if you look them in the eyes; they take it personally. Sure, maybe not the morality of a coffee shop, but the morality of a sleezy bar? Perhaps. Would you accept the correction: Killing without REASON is immoral?

To say an axiom isn't taken on faith is to say A is not A, its a contradiction of the definition of an axiom. It doesn't matter if the axiom reaffirms itself, all good axioms do, but they're still accepted 'without proof' in order to prove other things. If you don't leave yourself with ground to stand logically, you can't prove anything. An axiom is disproved when it creates a logical contradiction, it can never be affirmed, because that would be to say: "Its truth is equivalent to its truth" or more clearly, it is true if it is true and false if it is false.