TLD

"Every argument commonly offered for the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axiomatic concepts of philosophy." "Objectivism advocates reason as man's only means of knowledge, and, therefore, it does not accept God or any variant of the supernatural." "Objectivism's refutation of theism...is not a case of "proving a negative.... (Rand)starts with reality, i.e., with (philosophically) known fact, then denies a claim that clashes with it." "Objectivism rejects agnosticism.... The agnostic says 'We can't prove that the claim is true. But we can't prove that it is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one ever can know'." "God" is simply rejected. She conclusion that there is no, and cannot be a, God. Now if you have read it, show me a quote that supports your claim.

Man is not rational by nature; you need not have that problem. Most people are not rational because they are not dedicated to reason and not focused on moral virtues.

The evidence or lack thereof is the common thread, not the nature of the entities. One only need to ask: how can a God fit Metaphysically? How could you allow a contradiction between reason and faith by accepting that there may be a God? Etc. It is philosophically wrong to be agnostic on this subject. That is why one has to conclude from the lack of evidence that there is no God.

You contradict your own camel example: the lack of evidence...says there is no camel in the room...or no God. One has to make such a judgment and draw a conclusion given a lack of evidence of a camel...or a God. That is not the same as proving there is no God - which one cannot and need not do. It is absurd to say that if there is no evidence of a God, then the evidence is simply missing. This is ignoring the fact that knowledge is contextual.

I did not say there is proof of no God. The burden of proof is on the believer. But I am correct in saying that I can conclude there is no God given the lack of evidence, just as in your camel example.

Greebo: "And this is why Objectivists are, by definition, Atheists. Not because we BELIEVE God doesn't exist - but because there is no BASIS to believe that God exists. Not believing in God is like not believing in Unicorns and Leprechauns and that on the far side of Venus there is a city 20 miles underground that has never been nor can be detected." Slight correction: because there is no basis..., we conclude and believe that there is no God.

I only know that that movie presents conspiracy theories. Nonsense! First, a Capitalist system could never do such a thing. Second, a Statist government could theoretically do much destruction. But given no environmental concerns even coming close to that presented in media today, it could not cause whatever is suggested in such movies. Third, one government could not "kill" the planet. And there could not be any worldwide plan to do so. Nothing is gained by watching movies or anything else that deals with such theories.

Yes, misconceptions run rampant. Best to do what you did first without Rand referenced. If you still get that reaction after a significant number of conversations of agreement, simply ask him what about Rand creates that emotion? Then remind him that everything he agreed to is consistent with her philosophy. That should - albeit slowly - correct the emotional response. Interestingly, I have had conversations with several people where I conveyed Obj.ist ideas; and after some time without referencing her but with them integrating what I said with what they hear in the news et al, they tell me they are reading one of her books. That certainly opens the door.

I don't agree. She knew religion did not fit with her philosophical thinking, but religion is not the founding premise. And no, there is no religious belief nor any objectivity associated with such.

I have known others to to believe as your Grandmother. And I understand how you concluded as you did. That is simply not going far enough to be considered an Obj.ist. There is a big gap between using religion to feel good and to minimize (never eliminate) altruism vs. philosophically rejecting all that religion represents.

Be careful not to rationalize here. If you have a specific reason to believe otherwise, state it.

Absolutely not. An Obj. is one who holds a very specific set of values. Rand was not arbitrarily anti-Religion: that starts with an objective view of Reality and ends with a morality of rational self-interest.

Recognize the betrayal, make any amends necessary, and stay true to your values going forward. It may not be easy to implement but it is easy in concept.

1. It is a primary right and immediately follows from the right to life. 2. Strikes of employees are perfectly acceptable; protecting the strikers' jobs is not. Amd government-sponsored (e.g. public) unions do not serve a rational purpose as did original private unions. 3. Libertarianism is not a philosophy; being imcomplete, it makes many errors unacceptable to Obj.ists. Its errors can certainly be discussed. But Obj.ism should not be irrationally challenged in this forum. 4. Lands were taken in war after being attacked by Arab nations. They are retained for their own safety given the goal of neighboring arabs is to destroy them.

When you reach the stage where you can "just pick one" without consequences, then that pick is not a "moral" pick; yes, that is an arbitrary one. In such cases, all the criteria necessary to evaluate the situation have been addressed. There is no irrationality associated with the "pick".

That choice would still have been a correct one. Knowledge is contextual. The amoral decision did not later become a moral one.

Finally an acceptance of what I and others have been saying.

I agree with the over-analyzing. Simply put: the decision whether or not to buy the tile is an objective one. The decision of which tile to buy rests on a number of criteria. When those criteria are applied and still leave alternatives - for a rational person, the "decision" of which to buy is not a moral one: it does not rest on moral principles, one choice is not "good" and the other "bad", etc.

If there is no downside, and a choice is arbitrary - without moral implications, then one is not worse off with one choice over the other. You and others are missing this point.

Now this is an example of moralizing about which I have previously talked. Re SN's comment, I agree that objectivity helps determines the choice. But I would say such a choice is subjective in the sense that it is arbitrary for Scottd - morality does not dictate which choice to make.

My statements were consistent. I know what you are saying. But you can't show where my choice of a movie - assuming I could rationally see either - is a moral one. Same with violating immoral laws; and I never said "any time and in any situation". I am speaking as an Objectivist; you have to assume I know when such an action is appropriate or not. In the case of the minor questioner, that simply changes the risk, not the principle. "Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." An action would have to be seen as irrational and negating life; and some actions simply do not fall into that category.

There have to be actions outside the purview of morality; otherwise, moralizing would not be possible. One action does not have to be more positive or negative than another; and even if that was the case, that does not necessarily mean that it is more or less of a moral aciton; e.g. more "positive" does not always translate to more "right." I believe you are confusing terms. If an action cannot be identified as right or wrong for the actor, than it is not a moral one. I hold that if you forced every action to be a moral one, then you are rationalizing and/or moralizing (thus the relevance of the quote above - ulterior motive or not). (It appears that you have switched forums, going back to a somewhat different topic than the one on which I was posting.)

In essence, it is inappropriately applying morality to amoral actions. Rand said: "Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing,... moral judgment becomes moralizing.... The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive."

It was not my question. But I believe it was David (and a couple others in an old forum) who showed himself as a moralizer - an error made by many Objectivists.

Very clever, pulling out a quote from a different context. This is no analogy to what I was referring here - to subjective decisions. As an aside, you are making a huge assumption that it is a gay man's nature to pursue a relationship with a man; but that is for a different forum.