Maken

You should look into that book, actually. I enjoyed it though I had to read it a few times to grasp it.

No. Need is not a value. I feel for them and wish to help them. In an Objectivist society, finding care for them would not be difficult in the slightest.

Because you are still giving validity to the arbitrary by saying it is "unlikely". "Unlikely" is saying that "it probably isn't, but could be". If you give credit to one arbitrary argument, you give credit to every arbitrary argument and you destroy the validity of logical argumentation. If you accept the arbitrary argument of a god, then you have to hold the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Santa" and "The Easter Bunny" as equally logical arguments.

What Rand is saying is that since there is no proof FOR a God, he doesn't exist. He can't be defined or even be recognized as possible until proof is represented. To do that is to give value and credibility to the arbitrary which is not logical. Not to mention, Rand is refuting the claim that God exists that has presented in the course of history. Not everyone has to say that God exists for the claim to exist. The claim of the affirmation of a God came before the negation, obviously.

We are merely denying the claim. To ask us to prove a negative (a negation of the claim the positive makes) is to ask us to prove the non-existent. Proving something to be non-existent is a contradiction in terms and requires omniscience and omnipresence. This is why it's a logical fallacy to ask us to prove that there is no God, especially when the claim is made in the positive in the first place. Because of this contradiction, the negative does not have a burden of proof. You are asking us to do the impossible, to prove a non-existent, or the lack of something that exists. We, as the negation, do not even have to acknowledge the affirmation's claim until they fulfill the burden of proof. Until that burden is met, the statement is arbitrary.

Shifting the burden of proof to those denying a claim is a logical fallacy known as "ad ignorantium".

Then I ask you, what evidence is this definition based on? You can't define or prove a non-existent. It doesn't exist. You are met with a contradiction. "A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are," (ITOE page 42). Before something can be defined and conceptualized, it has to be observed perceptually. Things are observed perceptually by our senses and after we form percepts we can identify units. Unit identification is essential before one can differentiate between units and omit measurements to form concepts and definitions. Unless you have directly perceived God on a perceptual level through your senses, your definition is invalid and arbitrary.

Only because there is a larger pool of people. It still comes down to INDIVIDUALS. But yes, I can agree with that

It is arrogant and it is elitist. Like someone else said, there are just as many people who are off their rockers in the big cities as there are in the rural areas. I come from Orange County (in Southern California right outside of LA), and, believe me, there are people who are like this everywhere. You cannot judge people as a collective mob, they have to be taken as individuals.

My favorite has to be when Francisco describes how he wrote a paper on the Immovable Mover. It isn't really that hidden but if someone were to pass through the text quickly they would never notice it. At the time I didn't know what this was so I actually went and looked into it.

Thanks for posting everyone!

That was a beautiful response, I don't even have secondary questions. <3

Thanks babe.

That is where I was confused. I wasn't sure if it would be moral or not to assosciate with non-objectivists. I mean, reasonably, there are not very many O'ist in the world so you would be pretty lonely if that were the case.

I have a friend who hasn't read Rand's works but is generally just a very objective person to begin with and he finds Objectivism fascinating so he often asks me questions about it and I was faced with a question I didn't know how to answer yesterday: What purpose do friends serve to an Objectivist? Now, I was able to explain that friends are most likely made based on values and virtues that people hold, much like the way one falls in love with somebody. But, what differentiates a friend from someone you love? Would it be immoral to have friends that don't hold values that are similar to yours?

Has anyone read this yet? If so, what should I expect before I start to read it? I can't stand reading socially biased books on economics, just curious if that is the case here before I start...

I am no art critic by FAR but I felt compelled to share what I felt about Beethoven's 5th It is one of my favorites because I think it represents a struggle. It goes back and forth from grandeur to almost a pessimistic and loathing melody and I think the few brief moments of life and grandeur it offers is representative of the struggle man has in this current state. My two cents

Some of the comments about Objectivists in general bothered me. It just seems like people are ignorant and I hate ignorance...

I wanted to read some quotes from Atlas Shrugged because I was bored and I stumbled on this site that had a few choice quotes. Now, the interesting part about this, to me at least, were the comments that people left at the bottom. It really seems like people don't understand what O'ism is all about and it upset me! http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2008/01/02/quotes-from-atlas-shrugged/

I find the anti-skeptic comment ironic.

Ron Paul over Romney?

She was grossly misrepresented there as well. I found that to be the most upsetting aspect of the thread.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-appeal-ayn-t128559/index.html *Moderator Note: Please do not start threads with a post that contains a link and no other information. This looks like spam and/or attempted Rickrolling.--JMeganSnow*