Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
“Really? If you’ve got a strong stomach and some time to kill, search the web for Nazi medical experiments.”
Uh, I’m aware of Nazi medical experiments. I wasn’t aware of the Skinner box. My hypothetical was designed to introduce a situation where I thought a legitimate argument could be made that the research couldn’t be done another way. Most of the things researched by the Nazis can be done in a more humane manner.
What’s alarming is the lengths people are willing to go to to PREVENT some hypothetical drug induced scenario from happening, to the point that they are willing to do the same to the opposition that they are condemning in the opposition.
Things like taking over the government to enforce their philosophy simply because they think that they’re right; as they’re already doing in their take over of the public school system.
Imposing their values and ethics on others whether they like it or not so that if they deem that your life is not worth living they can murder you by starvation and dehydration, whether you like it or not.
Taking away our freedom of speech, by declaring topics *hate speech*, taking away our freedom to defend ourselves by disarming us, all for our own good.
Can you say *hypocrisy*?
Such as?
If nothing is supernatural, then the reality is that “natural rights’ are nothing more than mere constructions by the majority and a matter of convenience, not reality. Under such a system, you murdering someone is not morally wrong. It may cause a problem for civilization if done on a large scale, but there really is nothing wrong with you doing what you can if you can get away with it.
Sigh. If a belief in God is the only thing stopping you from murdering, I hope your faith remains as solid as a rock.
OK, forget it. You have yet to address any of my original points, all of which were reasonable. They are nothing new and have been debated by philosophers and thinking men for centuries, so I didn’t expect a response that was particularly groundbreaking, but I at least expected something more than the logical equivalent of “God declared it so” from someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural. There is little use in debating someone who isn’t willing to admit that even the concept of natural rights existing is very open to debate.
On a side note, I’d appreciate it if in any future discussion you would approach me as an individual and not a member of any particular group. Yes, I’m a Christian, but I’m also gay, very well educated, and a host of other things that no doubt won’t fit into the “us vs. them” mentality you displayed with your use of “We’ll make sure it stays that way.”
For Objectivism, this would be a big deal. A Big Deal. I'm hanging on, waiting to see what it is.
If you're worried about citing an obscure Objectivist journal, don't worry: I probably have it.
This may very well shake my world.
Yes, I’m a Christian, but I’m also gay, very well educated, and a host of other things that no doubt won’t fit into the “us vs. them” mentality you displayed with your use of “We’ll make sure it stays that way.”
As a gay man, you should be terrified of religious extremists seizing control of the government. None of the Big Three religions have a satisfactory record re: human rights for gays.
Also, as a gay man, you should be familiar with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. There are a lot of gays that love her. :P
I have the patience of ... well, an archaeologist. And I'm used to teaching.
I'll take that question.
The goal of science it to produce reliable knowledge, regardless of whether it conflicts with received wisdom.
I will address your question in full in a future post, so even if you don’t agree with my conclusions, I at least hope you will be satisfied that I have given your question a reasonable response. Because I haven’t read Rand in years, I want to be able to cite specific instances rather than my memory of those instances. In brief, Rand has to make certain assumptions about the nature of reality that are as logically valid as certain assumptions made by the “mystics”. There is a certain amount of faith required in any belief system and one must make a choice in the question of the universals, and while most systems admit this, many “Randians” do not seem to be willing to do so, which is where the problems arise. Again, we’ll get back to this.
As for homosexuality, I don’t see why it has anything to do with belief in a supreme being. You’re right that theocracies are troublesome, but I don’t see people voting their values as being the same as a theocracy. To be honest, I think there is just as much of a possibility of extremist atheists in power killing theists and forcing their own morality (all the while claiming they aren’t doing so) as there is of the opposite situation, so I think a reasonable man can be concerned about the balance tipping too far in either direction.
I read most of Rand’s works, did not find them convincing, and moved on in my search for truth, so simply put, I think I’ve given her a fair shake. I went through a period in life where I examined all possibilities from atheism to mormonism to buddhism to protestantism, etc. I settled on Christianity.
On a side note, I recall you posting images of hot girls, so I’m guessing you’re not gay. :P
Exactly from WHAT do you "feel soooooooo free!" — the rules of common decency, of basic civility, of good-faith public discourse?
If so, go be "FREEEEE" then!!!! Go back to the fever swamps of the "other foruns" which find such behavior congenial....
What you said in relation to metmom has no basis in reason. The fact that it was obviously, consciously, intended from the get-go to be deeply, personally insulting to metmom turns out to be personally insulting to me.
So, hie thee hence, back to the sulferous cesspool where you find your true compatriots!
I'm sorry it's come to this. But there are certain civilized standards of behavior that need to be upheld and defended....
So do I Kevmo. Especially since, from an unimpeachable personal source, I understand that Soliton was perfectly prepared to do that, in that he had written a "reply" to Timothy in the form of an "allegory."
From this source I learned that Soliton strongly objects to A-G's and my treatment of the character Froggie in our book. His allegory — which evidently seeks to prove that Froggie is really just another "Bird" — evidently was to be presented through a new character, Isaac Owl.
When I heard that, I couldn't wait to meet Isaac Owl! But evidently, that is not to be. Soliton has been really scarce around here since last Friday....
I continue to hope Soliton's allegory will be made public here. But I'm not exactly holding my breath....
I look forward to it. Don't feel rushed.
Because I haven’t read Rand in years, I want to be able to cite specific instances rather than my memory of those instances. In brief, Rand has to make certain assumptions about the nature of reality that are as logically valid as certain assumptions made by the “mystics”.
Rand's axioms.
There is a certain amount of faith required in any belief system and one must make a choice in the question of the universals, and while most systems admit this, many “Randians” do not seem to be willing to do so, which is where the problems arise. Again, we’ll get back to this.
Oh, I look forward to this. :)
As for homosexuality, I don’t see why it has anything to do with belief in a supreme being.
Homosexuality should have nothing to do with a supreme being. However, the holy books of The Big Three condemn homosexuality. True Believers, being God's Holy Warriors on Earth, make sure to enforce God's proclamations.
If a God does exist, it would have to be an 'Einsteinian God'. A cosmic 'God'. Not some petty, little tyrant that gets jealous and punishes his children for all of eternity.
I fail to see how or why God should care where I - or you - stick it. This obsession with the sexual sounds a little too human.
You’re right that theocracies are troublesome,
Once any religion - any belief system that has a supernatural component - gets power, only death and misery can follow.
That's why mysticism in Objectivism would be a Big Deal. For me, at least.
but I don’t see people voting their values as being the same as a theocracy.
If their values - which are based on a supernatural belief system - demand that non-believers be treated differently, then it is a de facto theocracy.
I wouldn't care if 5.9 billion people voted to murder a man. Their votes do not invalidate his right to life.
To be honest, I think there is just as much of a possibility of extremist atheists in power killing theists and forcing their own morality (all the while claiming they aren’t doing so) as there is of the opposite situation, so I think a reasonable man can be concerned about the balance tipping too far in either direction.
As long as the government respects the rights of individuals, it would be difficult to go around murdering people.
I read most of Rand’s works, did not find them convincing, and moved on in my search for truth, so simply put, I think I’ve given her a fair shake. I went through a period in life where I examined all possibilities from atheism to mormonism to buddhism to protestantism, etc. I settled on Christianity.
I recognize the pattern. I was fascinated with Buddhism and Mormonism growing up.
On a side note, I recall you posting images of hot girls, so I’m guessing you’re not gay. :P
Well, I also posted a picture of this guy in a thread about Obama's "sixpack". ;)
However, you're right. Even though I was born and raised in San Francisco, I am straight.
Lonely and straight.
Lonely, desperate, and straight.
Likewise your system of beliefs is what keeps you from murdering anyone, if you believe that it is wrong.
That still doesn't address the notion that without God there is no legitimate basis for any moral system. *Right* and *wrong* just become human constructs that work for whichever society you happen to be in.
Moral relativism is no better than none.
As is borne out in the atheistic, communist regimes so infamous in the 20th century.
At least the Soviet Union fell.
Sadly, too many countries are still bearing witness of what living under atheistic regimes can lead to.
You mean they flourished under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Il?
While they haven't attempted to 'eliminate' any specific discipline, they - let's go with an example everyone can recognize - want to force Creationism (oops, "Intelligent Design") into public schools and/or restrict the teaching of evolution.
So by your own admission, they haven't tried to impose that dominionist theocracy on everyone. Creation was taught in schools for centuries with no deleterious impact on education. Christian schools which do teach both, outperform public schools. Homeschoolers, who are often very conservative Christians, teach both as well and they do even better than the private schools in educating and graduating their students. There is no precedent set that indicates that teaching creation/ID is going to result in more poorly educated students in the sciences. The statistics do not bear it out.
Further: I was using the 700 Club's ratings as an example of how popular the anti-science segment of the US population is.
Why do you assume that the viewership of the 700 club is inherently *anti-science*? (And evos are complaining about made up labels?) Sources?
Mr.S The objection raised to embryonic stem cell research is that it kills a human life.
CE: Oy. Not touching that one.
Don't you believe that a human embryo is a human being?
Yawn! Being an atheist doesn't mean you're a communist.
Sadly, too many countries are still bearing witness of what living under atheistic regimes can lead to.
Sadly, too many countries are still bearing witness of what living under atheistic regimes regimes that fail to acknowledge and respect basic human rights can lead to.
Fixed it for ya.
You may want to read this: Biblical Communism
Sob, sob.
Interesting. Considering the comments he directed at me came at the time he was bragging about how this thread would be pulled and he would be banned, I saw them as merely attempts to provoke the mods into taking such a course of action.
I’m glad they didn’t. This thread has turned out to be one of the strangest ones I’ve seen in a long time and it deserves its place in history.
BTW, are you referring to DC?
Dignity means never posting an opus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
