JUtley93

Where I rank myself later on, when I've read more objectivism.

I would probably put myself at around a 5.5 or 6 at this point. We'll see what happens.

It was one specific person I think, however, I'm grouping you all into one group of objectivists. Probably a mistake. And the definition I gave was God is a supernatural being. I can't remember what the other definition was. However, all this is irrelevant at this point. If you want to look within the last few pages it should be pretty obvious.

Well, honestly, I am afraid of death. I don't see why this would be a bad thing though. Shouldn't it be to anyone who's ultimate goal is to live? But more on topic, would a belief in heaven contradict objectivist ideas?

The only thing left I could think of saying is whether or not a heaven could exist. There's no way of being able to prove that wrong, is there? It all comes down to faith, or a lack of?

Didn't you just say this isn't an option. I'm a bit confused. The reason I feel objectivism and agnosticism are compatible with each other is because agnosticism cannot allow one to draw any conclusions about the supernatural, and this would force an agnostic to act according to reason in reality. I don't think this idea has been proven flawed in this thread. Or maybe I just completely missed it. Please correct me if I am wrong. If I'm coming off as ignorant, forgive me, I'm honestly just trying to fully understand this. Everything else I've questioned about objectivism has been answered in ways that do make complete sense. This is the only case breaking that pattern.

My definition was God is a supernatural being. Making up definitions? I think not. I never said Gods could be disproven. I'm saying that an atheist says it's a fact anything supernatural doesn't exist. Wouldn't an atheist claiming the supernatural cannot be disproven be a contradiction? Also, I am definitely coming off the wrong way. I'll admit, everyone here has certainly done their part in proving their point, and I am much more leaning towards the idea of atheism than when I started this thread. I'm just playing devil's advocate, because I'm still not entirely convinced that atheism fits objectivism. If anyone considers this a waste of their time, no one is forcing you to debate with me.

Now you guys are attempting to prove your point through definitions, and after I tried this, you said this wasn't valid proof. So aren't you contradicting yourselves?

I'm not saying I believe in it. I never did. I'm just generating ideas. I don't believe we can know anything about the supernatural, so I don't claim that none of it exists.

There's no proof for it either. That's why I just don't have any opinion when it comes to supernatural stuff.

Prove it's impossible.

Oh, I misread the question. Sorry. If a god did exist, it could watch us from a distance, such as heaven. That would leave know marks on reality as we see it.

What's the difference between that and...?

Not as we see reality.

You can't prove they're non-real though.

Dude, you're getting the wrong idea. I may think about clearly unprovable ideas, but I never claim they exist. I also completely understand what you all are saying, I just can't see it in black and white like you all because I accept that we are not omniscient. You do not know that there is no god. It's impossible for you to know for sure. How this can lead to atheism I can't understand. I can understand choosing not to believe in a god, and that's what I do. But I won't say "There is no God," because I don't know.

He never said non-real in that post. He said unprovable. Two completely different things. Non-real things are false.

So basically, the don't have to pay taxes, but do have to pay for things we get for free? That sounds fairly reasonable. Probably the best we could do now.

*** Mod's note: merged with an existing topic. -sN *** Obviously, in an objectivist society immigration wouldn't be a big deal. In today's society, with taxes and whatnot, what would an objectivist have to say about illegal immigration? While we are all paying taxes they're getting by without paying a lot of them, and this isn't really fair. Should they still be allowed?

It's not necessarily time wasting. For me, giving it a little thought can be kind of fun. It's like a fairy tale to children. Sometimes it can spark an idea that does apply to reality. Now, I don't focus much attention to it, and chose think about reality pretty much all the time. I don't see how this could interfere with objectivism. Also, the whole your mind is not your mind thing isn't a contradiction. It would have never been our mind, and would just be ignorant until gaining new knowledge.

Yeah. What relevance does that make? It doesn't mean that I'll suddenly start worshiping these parasites.

Personally, it's more specifically the person I'm talking to. If the collectivist is completely unwilling to consider new ideas, I just get annoyed and disappointed. If I can present them a few points and they actually begin to consider them, I actually enjoy talking to them. I feel like I'm helping them begin to put reason into their thinking rather than strictly emotion and predetermined standards.

My evidence is the definition of God. A supernatural being. We can't have evidence for or against it. We never will have evidence for or against it. Now you are all going to come in saying "Then why consider it?" I consider it because it interests me and brings me enjoyment. I'm not going to attempt to prove something impossible to prove, including whether or not God exists. I leave the question of "Does a God exist?" unanswered. You say no, it does not exist. Because of this, you are making a claim with no evidence backing it and that goes against reason, does it not? And stop avoiding my damn question.

I played for two years. I still have mine and can get around on it. Are you taking lessons privately?

Couldn't insurance also help with this?