Are Objectivists REALLY Atheists?

"Thoroughly American" is crap.

Now, thoroughly Texan is entirely another matter.

PS. Robert Massie's book really does its subject justice, doesn't it.

PPS. Gary, what is your Russian connection?

Post 101

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 8:48pm

Hong,

First question - Yes, It does!

Second question - U.S. Army. It would seem I have an aptitude for languages and I was useful back when the Soviets were the Evil Doers! And I despise communists. So, I studied everything about Russia. They have a fascinating culture and unique history. That's how I discovered Peter the Great and ...well, the rest is...History!

Well, I've decided I'm going to read some more Massie. It's Friday night and I do not have to get up in the morning, so I plan to indulge myself.

Have a good weekend!

And...

"The stars at night... are big and bright...(clap)...(clap)...(clap)...Deep in the Heart of Texas!"

gw

Post 102

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:48am

Diamond Lyman,

Just a historical correction. Orthodox Christianity was the established religion of Tzarist Russia, which was officially an Orthodox Christian theocracy. Non-Christians were restricted - with very rare exceptions - to living within a designated "pale of settlement" for each non-Christian religion (this is the origin of the phrase "beyond the pale".) Atheists and agnostics were banned from Russia.

These restrictions were abolished after the revolution, as was the official establishment of the Orthodox Christian Church. This led to widespread popular dissatisfaction. After Stalin, who studied in a seminary for the Orthodox Christian priesthood, rose to power, he re-established Orthodox Christianity as the official church of the state in Russia, and resumed the practice of paying Orthodox Christian priests a salary from government funds. As far as I know, Orthodox Christianity is the Established Church of the Russian state to this day.

Post 103

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:11am

I was brought up as a Christian. In fact, as a teenager, I was the Acolyte the Reverend Stenning could count on for a 5:30 AM Wednesday morning service during Lent. I am now an atheist and have been since I was 18 and figured out that the Prime Mover argument did not hold water. As for being American, my Dad was a naval aviator and I grew up in MN, CA, TN, MD, FL, VA, TX, NJ, VA (2nd time) RI, OK, KS by the time I was 18. It is true that my ancestors did not start arriving in America until 1870 and the latest came in the early 1890s. Some would claim that makes my American credentials shaky, but I have little regard for that kind of simplistic arrogance. Finally, I took Bill Clinton's place in Vietnam. What could be more patriotic?

We observe cause and effect in operation as an interaction between entities consisting of matter and energy which already exist, but are simply changing forms or relationships in ways largely, but not yet entirely, understood by the laws of physics. This concept of Cause and Effect cannot be used to address the relationship between all of that which exists in the form of matter and energy and some Prime Mover. There is no connection here. What is more, it is by no means clear that positing a Prime Mover explains anything. If there were any hope that it would, then one would have to actually be able to attribute real properties to the Prime Mover. Those attributed by Christians and Jews are nonsense and clearly created by men of limited mental powers or knowledge.

We do not know that there was never a time when matter and energy did not exist. Even the Big Bang theory takes us back to a single big bang. Could there have been a cycle of big bangs and subsequent collapses going back forever? Maybe. In any case, it simply makes more sense to identify what we do not know and recognize it as such. "Inventing" or "Creating" a creator as a false explanation for what we do not know does nothing for us. It is simply dishonest.

Besides which, if there were some being that I would recognize as a God, that God would be disgusted with me if I were to make assumptions about such things that I really did not know about. He would look upon anyone who did as a foolish sycophant and have much less respect for them than for a man who used his rational faculty the best he could and properly assessed what he knew and what he did not know. Consequently, even the argument that it is too risky to Bet Against God means nothing, unless you bet that God is a Fool. It seems to me that would mean that God was not worthy of being God. Big problem!

So, I am an atheist because it is not the case that I believe in God. I do not believe in God because I have no reason to do so.

Post 104

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:22am

Gary - I was recently in PA about 10 miles north of Meadville and observed the night sky from a dark road with my wife and 2 of my daughters. They noted that the stars were as bright as they are sometimes shown to be in movies. They had not been aware that they really could be so bright. I explained that when you live in Baltimore - Washington, DC the many lights prevent one from seeing the night stars well.

So, when you quote songs of Texas with big stars in the heavens, are you saying that Texas is the boonies?

Post 105

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:21am

Either that or they're spaced out...

Post 106

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:51am

Yes, when you go to the vast west Texas desert, drive for miles and miles without seeing another human soul, camp in the middle of the wilderness, you'd see the vast night sky with millions of stars, some are so bright it almost hurt to stare at them. Many are so far away and countless that they become indiscrete milky patches.

Yep, every time I go to west Texas, it is like an out-of-this-world experience.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 7/23, 6:03am)

Post 107

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:03am

Southern Maryland was like that when I lived with my uncle years ago... yes, there was habitation, but mostly tar shacks and the like, so at night, all was DARK, and the only light was from above - fascinating, almost like being in a spaceship traveling thru the galaxy... could just lay on the ground for hours looking at the milky way and the seemingly millions of dots of light spewed across the night sky...

Post 108

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:26am

I don't accept or deny that there is a god or gods. I, for one, do not know how anyone can rule out the existence of something they have no knowledge about or cannot conceive. It takes me back to the Allegory of the Cave. The people chained to the walls, watching their shadows and accepting the shadows as their only reality. To accept or deny the existence of large mammals wondering outside of the cave...which they could neither see nor hear...would have been absurd. Absurd to accept because they would have had no empirical evidence upon which to base their "belief"...absurd to deny because there are, in fact, mammals on this earth. In much the same way, it is absurd to reject or accept "god."

First, nobody has any idea of what exactly god is...god could be an intelligent form that is beyond our natural laws (indeed, having "created" our natural laws)...thus beyond our comprehension. God could also be the Department of Experimental Life Operations (DELO)...some project created by extra-terrestrial lifeforms from another galaxy with technology outside the realm of our understanding...who are harvesting life on this planet to study and use for the advancement of their own worlds.

There are endless possibilities of what God is. There is also the possibility that God is not. But, to me, proudly proclaiming to know that there is, indeed, no god...and then propping up organizations to celebrate such an inane belief (American Athiests Leagues or whatever) is just arrogant bologna. And honestly, that's why I liked War of the Worlds...not necessarily because I want my ass turned into red licorice by space creatures...but because the idea of atheists being turned into red licorice by the DELO after denying such a entity exists...well it flat out amuses me.

As an aside, Christianity has so influenced the thinking of people all over the world that when a person denies God's existence...its usually by denying the existence of the Christian God. The "big bang" theory is typically used to prove that "creationism" is hogwash. Yet many people believe "god" is "reason" or even a "grand unified theory" of some sort...and I rarely see posts denying those gods.

/\
\/

Post 109

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:03pm

<< The world was once flat wasn't it? Or was it? Hmm? It sure as hell appeared flat. Then lo and behold, one of those pesky "figuring it all out" people shows up and I'll be jiggered, THE WORLD AIN'T FLAT AFTER ALL! >>

Anybody who ever witnessed an eclipse could have seen that the earth's shadow against the moon was round, not flat. Proof of god is not so obvious to the naked eye. Its not even the same kind of question.

<< Then, just like falling dominos - The Sun is not the center of the universe - >>

Copernicus, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and Kepler "scientifically" concluded that the sun was the center of the universe. Were they mystics who relied on faith to reach their conclusions or were they men of science and reason..as atheists claim to be...who happened to be wrong?

<< The planets don't orbit the Earth" >>

A true statement (Of course, the moon orbits earth and it would not have been unimpressive to mistaken the moon for a planet in 1000 B.C.) But even Ptolemy did not just "accept" that the earth was the center of the universe. He believed, much as atheists do about god, that science was on his side...his position being scientifically reasoned/tested. He was also wrong...

Bottom line: It is possible that atheists are WRONG about god. In fact, its more likely than not that they ARE wrong in light of the history of human knowledge. And I want to be clear here...I'm not shooting down the people who "tend" to believe there is/isn't a god. This is directed at the arrogant souls who staunchly assert that there is, in fact, no god and then base that opinion on some lame explosion theory that WILL in due time be proven absurd by future generations having more knowledge than ourselves...as was the case with ptolemy, copernicus, etc...

<< Those who figured things out have made us all the richest generation in history. >>

Those who "produce" make themselves rich. Those who spend their lives disproving god's existence aren't producing anything more than top grade bologna.

As for those devious little entrepreneurs who are making money off ignorant atheists via "american atheists" membership dues...god bless those folks. The Vatican's been running the same racket for years. Best of luck to ya.

<< And remember, do not post something for debate and then when you don't like the response say "stop bothering me. >>

I assumed you were bright enough to find the sarcasm in that comment. Wasn't a scientific conclusion though.

/\
\/

Post 110

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:17pm

Diamond,

See my earlier post if you haven't already.

There are so many arguments against the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God because that's what represents a humongous part of theism these days. However, the argument against absurdity isn't limited to God. Pantheism is pretty useless as far as arguments though.

Sarah

Post 111

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:22pm

Adam posted: "Just a historical correction....Christianity was the established religion of Tzarist Russia...Atheists and agnostics were banned from Russia...Stalin..re-established Orthodox Christianity as the official church of the state in Russia...Orthodox Christianity is the Established Church of the Russian state to this day."

Thank you for that...although I'm not sure why it was addressed to me. It seems pertinent to previous posts by gary williams who claims to be a russian historian.

I personally don't know that much about Russian history. I DO however know a little about Ayn Rand's life...this knowledge being based on biographies posted on line, the DVD Sense of Life, her own comments to Phil Donahue on a few videos I copied from my local library, and other objectivist material I've read over the years.

My original point was that Rand wasn't brought up religious...her family being unorthodox jewish and not active participants of any religion in russian, whether it was orthodox christianity, communism, whatever. (I have watched a discovery channel special or two on the Russian Czars and I'm amuzed by the fact that such allegedly christian folks were so fascinated by, and supportive of Rasputin). A few people have pointed out that Rand lived in Russia while Russia had a state religion or two...and that Stalin was apparently religious...but nothing really responds to my point that Rand's family didn't practice religion and as such this may have impacted her philosophy as being an atheistic one.

Hong made a comment or two about Texas...but so does the president from time to time.

/\
\/
(Edited by Diamond Lyman
on 7/23, 12:45pm)

Post 112

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:42pm

Sarah: "The punchline is: your creator god idea is full of shit. There is no rational or physical way a creator god is a viable entity."

...according to your human capacity to reason. When I see a statement like that I think of one chained trogladite saying to the trog next to him (See Allegory of the Cave) "your idea of anything outside of this little cave is full of shit."

There were a lot of "leaps" in your post too...one being that because god made "natural law" he is necessarily "part of natural law." Are you a part of your brownies after you bake them (Lockeian property rights theory notwithstanding?) No...so don't get mad at yourself because you don't acquire chocolately skin with raised swirls. In short, you aren't what you bake...and neither is god. God can create without having to fall under the laws of his creation.

You purposely frustrated your own argument by concluded "god created natural laws...so he's a part of natural law...but his characteristics aren't consistent with natural law...so he must be shit..and everything else in the world is shit." It really wasn't an impressive example of the god argument.

/\
\/

Post 113

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:04pm

Diamond,

You misunderstand. I said that by our definition of natural law must rule everything in the physical world whether we're aware of it or not. The attributes of God are not consistent with a causal universe, so if God is a part of the natural world then we're stuck with strict predeterminism.

If you want to claim the unknowability of God, have fun. But don't expect any sympathy here.

Sarah

Post 114

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:09pm

<< You misunderstand. I said that by our definition of natural law must rule everything in the physical world whether we're aware of it or not. >>

This is true. Natural laws must rule everything "within" nature.

<< The attributes of God are not consistent with a causal universe, >>

This presumes you know the attributes of god. You don't know these attributes simply by knowing god made the physical world. There is a gap in your reasoning. By assuming you know these attributes and building your argument upon that gap you are rationalizing.

<< So if God is a part of the natural world then we're stuck with strict predeterminism. >>

There is no reason to believe god is a part of the natural world such that you should even consider strict predeterminism. But let's say god is a part of the physical world in the sense that god is the "thread" that holds the natural world together, i.e. god is "natural law."

If god is the thread then you can rightly conclude that things are predetermined in the sense that everything in the physical world must conform to god's attributes, i.e. to natural law. Thus "gravity" predetermines that every thing on Earth that is thrown in to the air will, at some point, return to the earth. So what's the problem? God being a part of the natural world does not negate your faculty of reason...your ability to think or not think...and thereby "choose" how you will be affected by natural law.

<< If you want to claim the unknowability of God, have fun. But don't expect any sympathy here. >>

I'm not claiming the unknowability of God so much as I'm disclaiming the infallibility of atheism. If you want to stand by the assertion that atheists have it all figured out... As for me, I just don't see atheism as essential to living in accord with objectivism. Gods existence doesn't interfere with my ability to think, even if it does fix the choices that I am forced to think about and rationally choose between.

/\
\/
(Edited by Diamond Lyman
on 7/23, 4:35pm)

Post 115

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:03pm

Hi Y'all!

Adam,

Excellent. Except I think you gave the wrong impression about Comrade Stalin (AKA - Murdering Psychopathic Bastard.) He only gave token recognition to the church late into WWII at the insistence of Churchill & Roosevelt. The Orthodox Church declined steadily all the way through 1944 with their coffers being looted and their clergy slaughtered on a regular basis.Close to 60,000 priests were killed or somehow "disappeared" after Stalin took power. I believe his quest for priesthood was only an attempt to gain power and wealth in a very powerful and wealthy organization. The Church, however, really frowned on his occasional murder or two and so he decided to become a "revolutionary" and to do what he really loved to do, murder.

Chuck!

Good to hear from you again!

Post 103 - Great! For the Bill Clinton reference, I salute you! I wonder if Diamond knows where Ol' Bill went to during the Vietnam War. That's right Diamond - RUSSIA!

Post 104 - What Hong said.

Robert,

I highly recommend a trip to the McDonald Observatory. And while your out their, drive over to Marfa and see if you can figure out what those damn lights are!

Hong,

Your right, there are some things that just have to be seen to be believed.

Diamond,

I think Adam would have served you better if he had simply suggested that you read a book.

Also, how does Copernicus & Co. getting it wrong, prove you right? I mean Aristotle thought insects were made from mud, but "Halleleuha! There is a God!" is not my first reaction. (Sorry for the miss-spelling of Halleleuha, I don't use that word much.)

Most of us atheist do not spend our lives trying to prove that God doesn't exist either. You and God are doing that just fine on your own.

Thank you for your concern about me possibly being poor. That was nice of you. However, sales have been up for 16 straight quarters now and I think I just may make it. You could say "I'm rolling in Baloney!" (Did you know that Bologna sales are the 3rd largest in all Luncheon Meats? Hmm? What are theist sellin' - Spam?)

And yes, I also detected a bit of sarcasm. I know the author personally and I can honestly state that he is "One Sarcastic Bastard!"

Sarah,

Do........do I hear you sharpening something?

gw

Edit: Diamond, please read post 46!

(Edited by gary williams on 7/23, 5:06pm)

(Edited by gary williams on 7/23, 8:09pm)

Post 116

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:09pm

Gary,

Not this time I'm afraid. If I went and argued against every theist or mystic it'd take the rest of my life and they'd still have faith or some absurd twisting of words (see 114) to fall back on. No, I only engage when it suits me; when I feel like toying with them for a little while.

Sarah

Post 117

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 7:38pm

<< Also, how does Copernicus & Co. getting it wrong, prove you right? >>

I simply pointed out that "Copernicus & Co." was wrong about the universe even though science seemed to be on his side. I argued that it is possible (indeed probable) that atheist claims to have the universe figured out (evidenced by their absolute denials of a god of any kind and unwavering support for the big bang theory) are simply wrong.

<< I mean Aristotle thought insects were made from mud, but "Halleleuha! There is a God!" is not my first reaction. >>

Nor should it be. That would be an absurd reaction. Did someone actually suggest that you reach such a conclusion or are you reverting to straw man attacks? My point, as reiterated above, certainly didn't suggest that conclusion.

My posts have attempted to make the case that atheism is as irrational as theism. That knowledge of gods nonexistence is as absurd as knowledge of the opposite. Yet I find myself labeled a theist and a mystic with "shit" arguments regardless. Not the discussion I was looking for. This is my last post to this thread.

/\
\/

Post 118

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:56pm

Fourth, "Figuring it all out" is far from being a waste of time. Not thinking is the biggest waste I can think of. Those who figured things out have made us all the richest generation in history.

Something about "standing on the shoulders of giants," or some such laurel.

You're a funny guy, Gary. Thanks for the chuckles.

Teresa

Post 119

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:09pm