Zoid

I don't know much about near-death experiences, but nothing that I've heard or read about them can't be explained physiologically. Given that we know neurological malfunctioning can produce images of the paranormal and religious experiences, I see no reason to believe in any soul or supernatural explanation for these phenomena.

But what you're saying about Objectivism and atheism hinges on your claim that one cannot conceive of something without that something existing. Pick your favorite creature from a work of fantasy, and you have a counterexample to this claim. Your argument against Objectivism and atheism crumbles alongside it.

I'm beginning to feel like a character in an M. Night Shyamalan movie. Are my posts only showing up in a parallel dimension, or am I not being clear that this argument proves the obvious absurdity that everything we can conceive of exists? So chimeras, hippogriffs, and Jedi exist, do they?

Again, please slow down and think about what you're saying. If what you're arguing were true, you couldn't deny the existence of anything without proving that it exists!

As I was trying to point out with my somewhat facetious unicorn post, this argument proves too much. If it were valid, it would also prove the existence of every mythical entity in which humans have ever believed.

Hooray, unicorns exist!

Yes, I'm aware of the "Grandfather Paradox," but there are theoretical ways around this. What I was questioning was the claims that one could deduce the impossibility of any form of time travel (into the past, of course) from the armchair.

The legitimate sense in which one can speak of a "right to privacy" is the right to be secure in one's own property, so that, for instance, no one can trespass on or search your house without your consent (and the government needs a warrant to do so). There is no "right to not being recognized/identified without consent," since recognizing or identifying someone doesn't constitute an initiation of force. So to answer your question, the German government's actions are immoral; the ban violates Facebook's property rights by dictating how the company may use its technology.

Okay, but how does one go from "Entities act according to their natures" to "Time travel is impossible"?

What metaphysical principles render time travel impossible?

Fair enough, but I think you're underestimating the extent to which people aren't admitting it because they honestly disagree rather than because they're evading. By "character attack" I mean accusing someone of a moral failing. There are, of course, different degrees to which one can do this - I'm certainly not accusing you of calling all your opponents bad people - but an accusation of dishonesty is an accusation of a character defect, and in this particular instance I think it's an unwarranted accusation.

Alright. My point is that "My opponents disagree with me because they're avoiding logic" is quite a strong claim, and without quite a bit of knowledge about their characters and the ideas they hold, you don't have the evidence to prove it. Unless you don't see honesty as a part of one's character, accusing someone of dishonesty is a character attack.

Then don't say that you're just claiming "there can't be two logical answers to one logical question." You're impugning the honesty of people who are familiar with the Objectivist movement and don't agree with your conclusions. For somebody who is opposed to dogmatism, you're a little quick to attack the characters of your opponents.

Your claim is stronger than the statement that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You said that anyone who disagrees with you is "bullshitting himself," i.e. lying to himself.

That's not what you said. You wrote: In other words, anybody who disagrees with you is not merely wrong, but dishonest.

True, but the point is that nature did not "plan" the way we evolved; it is not purposive in any sense.

Objectivism certainly doesn't advocate self-aggrandizement. It's true that humility is not a virtue in Objectivism, but the philosophy doesn't define humility in the way you're using the term here. Instead, Objectivism recognizes pride as virtue - specifically, the virtue of continuously improving yourself by seeking values. Humility, then, is the contrasting vice that essentially says, "I am worthless." Humility in the Ayn Rand Lexicon Pride in the Ayn Rand Lexicon On the contrary, faith lends itself to arrogance more readily than reason. The latter demands evidence, justification, and the willingness to revise one's beliefs in the face of new data. Faith claims to bypass these requirements and guarantee absolute truth and infallibility. (I'm not accusing all theists of arrogance, I'm speaking of the logical conclusions of the traits in question).

Depends on what you mean by "diametrically opposed views." A married couple must share fundamental values, but this doesn't imply that they must agree on every issue. An atheist can marry someone who believes in God provided they have more important traits in common.

As I use the term, critical thinking is the careful application of logic in examining the validity of a claim. This definition is by no means the only reasonable one, but I think it accurately captures the way the term is commonly used. It consists of asking such questions as: What evidence supports this claim? Is the evidence reliable? Does the claim necessarily follow from the evidence provided, or is there another explanation? Does this claim integrate well with what I already know? Will accepting this claim require me to reevaluate any assumptions I've made? And so on. Teaching critical thinking to children would consist of applying these kinds of questions to the claims they encounter in their coursework. The current culture of egalitarianism and subjectivism in American education reinforces fuzzy thinking, and critical thinking skills are a useful antidote.

Forming concepts and establishing relationships between them is necessary for any thinking, let alone critical thinking. Could you explain in more detail what you're asking and what prompted the question?

You may know this already, but the "OPAR" Greebo mentioned is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It's a comprehensive explanation of Objectivism, and it explains in detail why Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy that rejects all forms of mysticism. If you're really interested in learning about the philosophy, I'd definitely recommend it.

There is no argument here, only arbitrary assertions. What does sanctioning homosexuality have to do with anarchism or subjectivism?

There is a right to privacy in the sense that individuals have the right to control access to their property and the government must have probable cause before searching an individual's property. But there is no "right to not have your street photographed." Google Street View initiates force against no one.

This isn't really my area, but to the best of my knowledge, if an entrepreneur wants to enter a field in which there currently exists a monopoly and there are high start up costs, he has two options: earn the required funds in some other field and then expand into the new business, or seek out investors. Can you think of any reasonable case where neither of these is an option?

It's hard to imagine any argument for slavery that doesn't collapse immediately with a basic understanding of the concept of rights. Briefly, slavery requires that the slave owner initiate force to stay in control, making him a rights violator and therefore in the wrong. If, after gaining freedom, a former slave tried to enslave someone else, that would make the ex-slave a rights violator as well, and the government of a free country would punish him just as it would anyone else who initiated force. A free society rejects the use of "power" in the sense the argument you quoted uses that term, i.e. power over men. Understanding freedom means recognizing that one person's success does not entail harming or subjugating anyone else.