Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

This is a subject near to my heart and my own spiritual journey, and I'd like to discuss it with as many intelligent minds as possible as I ponder it. It seems to me as though the most basic, intrinsic aspect of a religious philosophy is faith. I have been talking to a lot of Christians lateley, so I'm not sure if that is the prevailing veiw among people of other persuasions. Anyways, it seems to me as though a religion can really be boiled down to beliving that it is THE answer, and it seems to me as though atheism is no exception.

But this is where I came to realize there many different brands of thought given the title of Atheist, each with their own twists. Here are some categories that i have run across, and my opinion(just roll with me on this one):

Spiritual Atheists Some people claim to be "spiritual" but not "religious," disavowing belief in a god persay in favor of just not thinking about the issue. It sounds just lazy to me. They get the "all good people go to heaven" feeling without defining good, heaven, or even feeling itself. This may work for some, but it seems to lack any real thought into the matter.

Non-Practicing Atheists And there are the "Catholics" like my parents who dont buy a word the church says, but are so afraid of what it means to be atheist that they desperately cling to a religion that offers them no real meaning.

Deist Atheists Some people use Atheism to describe a sense of disbelief in the major established world religions, which to me sounds like it could still be a throwback to the deism of the 18th century. Basically it can be summed up as: There is some kind of god, hes a pretty decent guy, dont be an ass and everything will turn out ok somehow, once again, a little too lazy for me.

Orthodox Atheists Then there are the Atheists so absolutly steadfast in their disbelief in god that they would have made an excellent Christian in another life (THAT's an interesting turn of phase!). They dont buy the proof that the various religions offer, but the seem to narrowmindedly rule out any possiblities except absolute soulless oblivion. I have a friend like this, and i have yet to figure out how he can 100% FOR SURE rule out a higher power of any type...

Agnostics This is the only one that really makes sense to me. I mean, maybe there's a god. Probably not one of the big religion's vengeful, mythical "gods" with their spotty and doubtfully accurate "historical records," I doubt reincarnation that doesnt work well with the increasing entropy of the universe, and the evidence for it is even less credible than the rest ... But prove to me god's not just hiding...

Thats where i'm at right now. I would appreciate any input, even religious propaganda. I want to know the truth, even if it means the complete destruction of my current schema for faith.

I would even go so far as to recommend two such books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith, to anyone who is openminded enough to consider Christianity. I almost bought into it after reading those, but to me, there are still holes (i'll probably talk about those later) If your already Christian, they will strengthen your faith, and if not, they will rock your world...

First, I do acknowledge that for basic security purposes people do need to, on the lowest level possible, respect another's safety.

Can I summarize Objectivism with this: Try your best to attain your personal morals? Is that a fair assessment?

Elfman2 says:
1) We need objective moral values to best cooperate and develop civilization, providing us with opportunity.

I say:
Opportunity is a relative term. That’s what you don’t see. What you are describing is ethics, not morals. Ethics are a set of rules that facilitate success in a certain field. They are not absolutes and are not applicable to unspecific situations, whereas morals are.

Elfman2 says:
1(b)) Happiness is more than succession of mindless indulgence in things pleasurable. We become numb to that. Happiness is long term, not immediate, psychological not sensory.

I say:
That is your unique definition of happiness, or maybe it is Ayn Rand’s. Either way, it is a subjective defintition. You also are forgetting that people can rationalize everything if they don’t care about Truth.

Elfman2 says:
Civilization’s development is evidence of our innate desires, talents and expressiveness. As we grow from children and recognize our responsibilities to our lives and recognize the limits on our desires, we evaluate and prioritize them as values. We typically express that through productive goals. Happiness is found in achieving those goals. I might suggest that variants of that are what most sustains you, even your successes in your spiritual life are goals achieved.

I say:
Are you speaking about me, or people in general? Either way, people can and do rationalize not acheiving those goals. I’ve seen it all too often... I also don’t quite understand your last sentence.

Elfman2 says:
A common Rand quote is that, “Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values.” Rational men living together generally develop goals that require courage, intelligence, strength etc. They’re valued and admired because they benefit us, not because of a subjective whim. We seek them in ourselves and in others. We’d be poorer less happy people if all our friends and neighbors were underachieving fat slobs. So after maturing to recognize the nature of happiness and the character traits and social conditions that promote it, no, there’s no need to do anything that doesn’t bring us happiness.

I say:
Again and again, you are not acknowledging this fact: people rationalize. If someone doesn’t acheive their values, they make excuses. People can also set really low goals and acheive them. They can set them far, far below their potential.

I say:
I read your profile and now this makes sense, “Rational men living together generally develop goals that require courage, intelligence, strength etc. They’re valued and admired because they benefit us, not because of a subjective whim”

I say:
But I must tell you this is simply not true in reality as far as I’ve seen. Godless people like to be around those who make them feel good. I just don’t see that Godless people make significant altruistic contributions unless it is either easy or for prestige. In the USMC I am sure this is true--and the USMC morality is based on Judeo-Christianity--but in society it is untrue that people like to contribute to the common good (unless they are Christian).

Once you read about evol. psychology this all makes sense.

you say:
2) My intellectualism aside, I think that the connotative differences from hedonism grow as you learn more about Objectivism. Objectivism requires that men use their best tool, their mind, to develop their values in order to achieve long term happiness. Hedonism substitutes those values with whatever’s pleasurable.

I say:
If happiness is a subjective state--and it is--people can use their minds at any level to acheive their desired level of happiness. I mention hedonism because I believe Godless people do things to acheive more pleasure. I don’t see any logical reason people should care about psychological happiness or morals if they don’t believe they ultimately matter.

Elfman2 says:
1 (c)) Another commonl Rand quote is that, “Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy". “Silly rationalizations” don’t qualify. They’re typically not that fulfilling and they contradict objectively developed moral values. At the very least, they alienate us from others who recognize the contradiction.

A life long paid drug habit would probably be riddled with misery between episodes of pleasure. Even if medical technology developed where some kind of euphoric dream state could be maintained without destroying the person’s health, that behavior wouldn’t project any of the character of social traits that we need and value. It certainly couldn’t universal or self sustaining. It might not be immoral, but it certainly would not be demonstrating any ability demanding much respect.

I say:
How can you quantify how someone feels after rationalizing? In theory, one who rationalized enough would alienate others. But common standards are so low that a person who lies to themselves but makes us feel good is often deemed accessible. I realize I have no way to quantify this; it has been my personal observation.

Also, I have found that the standard of respect is low. As long as people are left alone to do their business they are happy. Not too many need to be role-models or respected individuals. And, if one’s desired level of happiness is fulfilled (partly due to rationalization), but would they? Often times that requires discipline and conquest of our nature.

Elfman2 says:
3) Objectivism can’t be “without moral constants” if the fundamental requirements of and benefits to our greatest moral value is constant and out of our control. It can’t be subjective when it recognizes that our moral values are dependent on our environment, on our innate physical and psychological nature and on our need for a society enforcing behavioral limits. That’s what promotes our lives as rational beings, our happiness, “objective” moral values. They transcend our wishes.

I say:
But they are not out of our control. Ann Rand said whatever makes one happy is the ultimate moral purpose. She furthered it by adding her brainwashed Judeo-Christian teaching of being all you can be. Also, a society enforcing limits for a common good is relatively new. History sans America has been pretty much the strongest block of people controls the show, the rest get shafted.

When moral values depend on the situation then they are, by definition, subjective. In Christianity, you can NEVER murder if you want to obey God.

Also, how could something transcend our wishes, our psychology, if there is nothing beyond those things?

Elfman2 says:
4) I’m sincerely glad you find happiness in study of Christianity and in promoting it. I’m not interested at this time in promoting Objectivism. I just don’t like to see it misrepresented.

I say:
I don’t believe Christianity because it makes me happy. You may call it that to understand it. But I just cannot logically ignore my duty to the Creator. Christianity is the most logical for the reasons I mentioned many a time.

Let me give you a hypothetical to prove my point. You are the dictator of Iraq. Through fear, you control an entire nation. Why adhere to Objectivism? You can have anything you want and, if you don’t develop WMDs or invade another country, your regime is safe. The only reason I can see would be desire or fear to be judged upon death.

On a lighter note, your profile says you were an analyst for the USMC. Were you a Marine or a civilian with them? Just curious.

Respectfully,

LOC123

" First, I do acknowledge that for basic security purposes people do need to, on the lowest level possible, respect another's safety.

Can I summarize Objectivism with this: Try your best to attain your personal morals? Is that a fair assessment? "

That’s one heck of an acknowledgement Loc123. Not exactly going out on a limb are we. [smile]

I guess that I haven’t been clear. Objectivists don’t get to change Objectivism. If anything, it’s stricter than Christianity (Christianity as defined by the dictionary, not by you). A one line definition would have to be “The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”. And objectivist are not on their own , but it’s always a challenge to have a minority ideology.

All your examples of rationalizing make that person something other than an Objectivist. No ideology or religion is immune to rationalizors. Christianity had its Crusaders and Inquisitioners. It most recently inspired whacko derivatives like The Peoples Temple, Branch Dividians, and Christian Identity. The recent ones were disavowed so I’d never claim they’re evidence that Christianity is subjective like you want to do with Objectivism.

Better check your definition of Ethics and Morals. Morals are values. Ethics is the study of Morals. Opportunity is a value for all, and not an ethical curriculum.

" Ann Rand said whatever makes one happy is the ultimate moral purpose. "

Please, I’ve told you Rand’s definition of happiness, and that’s not what she said. You don’t have to believe me. This is from “ The Ethics of Ayn Rand ”

" Happiness is the highest moral purpose for humans. Happiness is that joy resultant from one’s attainment of one’s values. Life is the ultimate value, happiness the ultimate moral purpose. These are two aspects of the same thing. But is not classic hedonism. Happiness is defined in a particular context, the context of human nature and human life. Happiness may be the purpose of ethics but it is not its standard. Neither is desire the standard. "

Expanding on this a little is a paragraph from, Happiness is not Subjective

"To briefly summarize Ayn Rand's theory, happiness is that state of non-contradictory joy that proceeds from the achievement of one's values in reality. Whether something is an objective value is determined not by whim but by reason -- by identifying a causal relationship between it and one's life. Objective values can range from good food, medicine, electric generators, telecommunications, Saturday Night, friendship, an exciting career, romantic love, honesty, integrity, justice, sex, etc. Values range in terms of importance and hierarchy. Reason itself is a top value because it allows one to identify and achieve all one's other values. The standard of value (missing in Kingwell's formulation and his article) is not some mystic belief or subjective feeling but the good life -- the life proper to a rational human being."

You may not like Objectivism’s definition of happiness, but you must now know that it’s not hedonism. You may claim it’s an unusual definition, but it has always been a vague term which people frequently try to pin down. Just see the search results for Christianity + "happiness is defined", and that’s just Christian opinions.

You’ve make a the claim that to value productiveness is “Christian Brainwashing”, but I haven’t seen any evidence from you that any of those values don’t support man’s happiness as defined by Objectivism.

Yes, I’m a former Marine. I think it’s funny that you want more clarification on my background after twice letting me know that I have no business knowing yours. [smile] You might find this interesting, The conclusion to a speech on the importance of philosophy that Ayn Rand gave at the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1974

I cannot believe I didn't realize my problem with Objectivism sooner. Here, we have been debating general psychology and so forth, essentially at a stall.

There is no reason to believe Ayn Rand's personal ethics (I'll get to the definition later).

If you can acheive happiness and contentment, rationalization or not, no problem says Ayn Rand. Unlike the Creator, there is no greater moral purpose under Objectivism since the criteria are happiness and using your available abilities.

You are correct that Objectivism is objective to you. But in reality it is subjective; it is Ayn Rand's feelings.

The difference between Objectivism and Christian rationalizers is this: Christian rationalizers fail God and Objectivist rationalizers...fail what? Fail to follow a women's ideas? So what?

Definitions: I didn't use it in the sense of def #2. #1 confirms my point, with the word "right" being obviously subjective to a secularist.

Your quote on Ayn Rand is all her subjective opinion. "One's values" is completely subjective and subject to change (ie rationalization). In fact, she even admits that values are subjective "sex, Saturday night, etc." And if one can accomplish their values without "reasoning" then what? Would Ayn Rand still say they are not living up to their purpose?

I apologize for haphazardly using the term "hedonism" but its connotative definition does still apply. Still, we deal with denotations.

On "productiveness": That is a vague term since it is a subjective. Christianity gives it an objective definition: serving the Lord as Jesus says it should be done (IE living a moral, hard life and evangelicizing)

And on your West Point quote, I found nothing objectionable. But this was interesting

"The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. "

Was this ever the doctrine of the US Military? We need to get hit first?

Elfman2, I didn't want to tell you my background because--in its context--I predicted you would use it as an escape from actually addressing my points. I also inquired about your service because your profile said you were an 'analyst in the 1st Marine division.' The language seemed a bit ambiguous, that's all. Usually, Marines also mention that they ARE Marines.

In any event, I will tell you about myself now that we are in the discussion. First and foremost I am a Christian (as you probably guessed), though I was not raised one. I am a college student at UW-Madison majoring in biochemistry and genetics. I took 2 years debate/advanced debate and 1 year of rhetoric in high school. I am also in the Marine Corps DEP waiting to be shipped 21 May 2004. Interestingly, when I graduate I want to be go to OCS (slice my Reserve contract) and be either an Intel Officer or work for DARPA while a Marine. What was your MOS, if you can tell me?

You have to forgive me again, but I'm curious: why are you not a Christian? Your values, it seems, are quite similar to actual Scriptural Christianity. May I mention one Scripture? When Jesus was spreading the Lord's desires, many of the religious Jews thought they were godly people. Jesus rebuked them for not listening to Scripture. He also said

You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. But the gateway to life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it" (Matthew 7:13-14)

The point being, most "Christians" today (and this was our original disagreement IIRC) do not actually practice what Jesus did and demanded. They believe that "believing Jesus was Lord" is sufficent. But Jesus directly refutes this in the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--over and over.

Thanks for your time,

LOC123

"There is no reason to believe Ayn Rand's personal ethics "

You haven’t read Ayn Rand’s ethics, but would you be more specific on what you think makes Objectivism “personal” ethics? I’ve told you how they apply to everyone, and how people don’t have the ability to change those ethic and still be Objectivists. I’ve shown you summaries from others attesting to the same.

What do you think the fundamental property of Rand's ethics is that you think others who have read them have missed that makes them personal?

"If you can acheive happiness and contentment, rationalization or not, no problem says Ayn Rand. "

Remember what I last wrote you. From the first sentence of the second and third paragraphs :

I guess that I haven’t been clear. Objectivists don’t get to change Objectivism…
All your examples of rationalizing make that person something other than an Objectivist.

" The difference between Objectivism and Christian rationalizers is this: Christian rationalizers fail God and Objectivist rationalizers...fail what? Fail to follow a women's ideas? So what? "

That woman is describing her understanding of reality and justifies her reasoning in “The Virtues of Selfishness” Objectivist rationalizers fail themselves and their potential that's dictated by their nature and environment.

" Your quote on Ayn Rand is all her subjective opinion. "One's values" is completely subjective and subject to change (ie rationalization). In fact, she even admits that values are subjective "sex, Saturday night, etc." And if one can accomplish their values without "reasoning" then what? Would Ayn Rand still say they are not living up to their purpose? "

All those listed values are secondary in hierarchy to primary values like reason which if fundamental to our lives as men. The author gave extreme examples to illustrate that even seemingly indulgent desires like “sex or Saturday night” are objectively moral if they promotes primary objective values. Only whey one fails to enjoy them through a priority with all else that they’ve reasoned through are they subjective and dangerous to ones life as a rational being and therefore immoral.

You have a similar structure in Christianity. Serving God is the ultimate value. Proselytizing is a primary values that results. Developing relationships and staying socially connected follows. I had a good friend in college who was a real back woods Renaissance wild man, worked construction and drank like a fish with dozens of semi-degenerate buddies on the weekend. We’d have fun together, but he had a knack of turning a conversation from rock trivia to spirituality when I least expected it. He always had an eye on helping those people spiritually. They wouldn’t have let their guard down to someone who couldn’t step into their world. He would always needle me on my atheism. He was a fairly good Christian in his own way, according to his own potential, and had no interest in or respect for Objectivism.

“Productiveness” is not much if any better defined in Christianity than in Objectivism. AFAIK, Christianity doesn’t say exactly "how" one should be productive in serving God, and Objectivism doesn’t say specifically how one should serve himself as a rational man, but both have strict parameters (if you read them) that when crossed claim one has failed God or oneself respectively.

If you still want to claim that Objectivism in connotatively hedonistic, please let me know what behavior you think is associated with the two.

Regarding war, I’m not aware of a consistent doctrine in the military on when to initiate it. That’s a congressional and an executive decision to some extent.. Regarding the non-initiation of force principle, don’t confuse Objectivists and Libertarian interpretations of it. I’m very sure you’ll like this short little piece: If we bomb Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran, how can we be sure we're bombing the right country?

Nice to hear you’re entering the Marines! I was an 0231, intelligence specialist. As an enlisted, my work was about half technical and half like any other grunt. The only person that I know that I can imagine you meeting if you go Intel is Chris Dunbar. Like you seem, he’s a very straight arrow. We were never too close, but went through the same recruitment station together, boot camp and intell school before he got accepted to OCS.

I was suspecting that you were a seminary student, but am glad that you’re in the sciences. I’m not too familiar with debate, but have had a little critical thinking exposure in other classes. Although I suspect there’s overlap, I think debate's more focused on persuasion than in coming to a logical conclusion. Of course you know that both are valuable skills.

And for what it’s worth, I’m not a Christian because I think that other explanations for the source of the Bible are way more convincing than the one that promote its divinity. I’m not out to promote that, and sincerely don’t want to attack your faith.

Glad to read a little more about you, Best

Elfman2: "You haven’t read Ayn Rand’s ethics, but would you be more specific on what you think makes Objectivism “personal” ethics? I’ve told you how they apply to everyone, and how people don’t have the ability to change those ethic and still be Objectivists. I’ve shown you summaries from others attesting to the same. "

They are personal since they are her interpretations on life. We can argue whether or not reason is important to success--which I would assume a secularist like Rand would agree is based on pleasure and happiness.

Is there any consequences for not being Objectivist, Elfman2?

Elfman2: What do you think the fundamental property of Rand's ethics is that you think others who have read them have missed that makes them personal?

1) Their importance--based on the products of employing reason--is debatable. People are often valued for their non-intellectual traits, to my sagrin. 2) There is no universal or ultimate consequence to not following Objectivism. 3) The entire base of "logic" or "reasoning" is one's morals. For instance, if Luoluo's morals are to steal, then pressing an alarm as she's robbing a bank would be illogical. However, if her morals were to prevent theft, then it would be logical.

I believe our morals should be based on empiracism. The entire first part of this thread was my explanation of my God must, based on qualitative probability, exist. Even secular scientists admit there is a Creator if there isn't "multiverse." This thread dealt with the multiverse I believe.

Elfman2: That woman is describing her understanding of reality and justifies her reasoning in “The Virtues of Selfishness” Objectivist rationalizers fail themselves and their potential that's dictated by their nature and environment.

So I'll ask again, what are the consequences of being or not being an Objectivist? Isn't making excuses employing rationality to some degree? It is assauging one's desire to not do X activity because of another factor. With Christianity alone can you not make excuses to appease your conscience since you will face your sins/lack of Good Works some day.

Do you acknowledge that Objectivism aims for selfishness in this life?

Can I sum Objectivism up as follows: Using reason to make your life more pleasured?

Is there a greater purpose than selfishness?

Isn't reason just a tool to achieve whatever you value? What determines what you value?

How could you condemn Hitler for his genocide/imperialism?

Elfman2: "You have a similar structure in Christianity. Serving God is the ultimate value. Proselytizing is a primary values that results. Developing relationships and staying socially connected follows. I had a good friend in college who was a real back woods Renaissance wild man, worked construction and drank like a fish with dozens of semi-degenerate buddies on the weekend. We’d have fun together, but he had a knack of turning a conversation from rock trivia to spirituality when I least expected it. He always had an eye on helping those people spiritually. They wouldn’t have let their guard down to someone who couldn’t step into their world. He would always needle me on my atheism. He was a fairly good Christian in his own way, according to his own potential, and had no interest in or respect for Objectivism. "

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. A Christian does not advocate "by any means necessary."

Premise: The Creator wants humans to behave opposite to their natural (evol. psych) desires.

Methodology: Primary: Personal righteousness (thoughts and actions), Secondary: Bringing others into that lifestyle and acknowledgement of Purpose.

Being controlled by a substance and having that perpetual desire separates you from God. If violates the first Commandment. A Christian cannot serve another desire than to serve God.

You don't need to be a drunkard to reach people with a dependency on chemicals. Believe me.

Elfman2: "“Productiveness” is not much if any better defined in Christianity than in Objectivism. AFAIK, Christianity doesn’t say exactly "how" one should be productive in serving God, and Objectivism doesn’t say specifically how one should serve himself as a rational man, but both have strict parameters (if you read them) that when crossed claim one has failed God or oneself respectively. "

I don't know what AFAIK means, but what you said is incorrect. Productiveness is doing what Jesus says. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and any citation of Jesus thereafter and you will see the definition.

Whereas God has an objective set of rights and wrongs--right=opposite of our "old nature"--Objectivism seems to state that anything is good as long as you use some logic and it is sustainable. Those make evolutionary/surivalistic sense, and that's all.

Elfman2: "If you still want to claim that Objectivism in connotatively hedonistic, please let me know what behavior you think is associated with the two. "

This is as I see Objectivism

Objective: Earthly happiness Methodology: Any method as long as it uses some manipulation/understanding of cause and effect (aka logic).

On war: she clearly said what I quoted. Her subsequent followers might change her opinion. Also, why would it be wrong, presuming those countries weren't a threat to the US, to leave the rulers in power? Tbe dictators are clearly using reasoning to acheive their personal ends?

As much as we disagree, I have no malice at all towards you. You must know that. Your service in the Marine Corps is simply wonderful, IMO. Thanks for the 'intel' on Chris Dunbar--I hope I can remember that name if I become an intel Officer. What was your last rank?

Debate is actually, in theory, more about a logical conclusion. Though, much to my dismay, you are right about rhetoric playing a more important role.

On Christianity: what kind of explanations? I did some cursory research on the Bible's credibility and I found them credible. I am honestly interested. My reasoning for the Bible's accuracy were: 1) The disparity of the writer's yet the absolute consistency of the message. 2) The archeological findings, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, that confirm the accuracy of translation. 3) That Jesus preaches the exact opposite of human nature and that we are uniquely given the ability/challenge to subdue our dark side. 4) The fact that no serious scholar has ever made an impact on the Bible's credibility. If there were inconsistencies/mistranslations/forgeries/etc I would think it would win a Nobel Prize to debunk them. That or at least an exalted position.

Please, explain your thoughts. As one who values honesty, would your objections be falsifiable?

Elfman2, I really enjoy discoursing with you and hope we can keep this up. I must warn you that I won't be checking this thread each and every day due to other obligations. I will continue the discussion, but as you said, we have to prioritize. I'm not leaving; I just don't have time to check it every day like I did during semester break (when we began the discussion until two weeks ago).

By way, you have a lovely wife and your daughter looks very curious about the world. Can I make a recommendation? Teach your daughter mathematics and spatial-visual skills at an early age--that will improve her future performance dramatically.

Thanks for you time, again.

Your friend,

LOC123

"They are personal since they are her interpretations on life. We can argue whether or not reason is important to success--which I would assume a secularist like Rand would agree is based on pleasure and happiness. "

It looks like you’re employing the word “personal” as leading to subjective. What’s the opposite of personal? Public? But Objectivism applies to the public, not to just those who accept it.

Do you think that the law is personal? I know that there’s a claim to a creator base, but not for specific provisions. So after all, the law’s just the opinion of elected officials’ “interpretation of life”…

Aren’t there religions that arise from people’s interpretation of revelation? In the same sense, if Objectivism is Rand’s interpretation of life, it’s her interpretation of the objective reality of human life and that’s every bit as objective and non-personal as one’s interpretation of a broad revelation. So if Objectivism is personal, Christianity is personal. The revelations passed through the authors of the books before they were written.

" Is there any consequences for not being Objectivist, Elfman2? "

We’ve discussed consequences of hedonism, aggression and fascism. I’d hoped that question was put to bed. Do you want to argue their benefits to life as a rational man? Feel free to do so now, but please don’t bring this up again latter.

"1… People are often valued for their non-intellectual traits, to my sagrin. "

A race of people deficient in intelligence but strong in these other traits would die off. The negative consequences of people frequently undervaluing intelligence is actually more evidence of the non-personal validity of Objectivism. Objectivism doesn’t bend to people’s opinion of it. If you think that people’s non Objectivist opinions indicate that Objectivism is personal, then people’s non-Christian opinions indicate that Christianity is personal.

"2) There is no universal or ultimate consequence to not following Objectivism. "

I don’t see how that would make Objectivists ethics personal even if it were true, but it’s not true. The consequence is that one’s life according to our nature is not potentially maximized. That’s universal and ultimate.

" 3) The entire base of "logic" or "reasoning" is one's morals. For instance, if Luoluo's morals are to steal, then pressing an alarm as she's robbing a bank would be illogical. However, if her morals were to prevent theft, then it would be logical. "

I don’t know where to go with that. It looks like the scenario of her robbing a bank with morals against it is already in contradiction with itself.

"Even secular scientists admit there is a Creator if there isn't "multiverse." "

I very much disagree with that gross exaggeration. I’m willing to eventually go into a discussion of biogenesis/abiogenesis, but I think our discussion is splintered enough for now.

"Isn't making excuses employing rationality to some degree?"

I can’t imagine how it would be of benefit to one’s life and happiness as a rational being. Again, feel free to give an example to argue the case. Excuses contradict reality, and happiness is "a state of non-contradictory joy".

" Can I sum Objectivism up as follows: Using reason to make your life more pleasured? "

I’d excuse that definition if you hadn’t read all the things I’ve written that are in conflict with that, like Rand’s definition of happiness rather than pleasure or the hierarchy of values according to our nature as men.

" Is there a greater purpose than selfishness? "

Selfishness isn’t a purpose, it’s a behavior or principle, the opposite of altruism. In Objectivism, selfishness is doing what’s in one’s rational self interest. Many of the supporting principles to that are defined (meaning one doesn’t get to rationalize them away and be an Objectivist) Again, this is in context with Objectivism’s values, morals etc… It all snaps together in a non-contradictory way.

" Isn't reason just a tool to achieve whatever you value? What determines what you value? "

Our innate needs as humans and the objective consequences of our relationship with our environment determine our values. I’m repeating myself now.

" How could you condemn Hitler for his genocide/imperialism? "

How can you say something that so fundamentally contradicts everything that I’ve said about Objectivism? FWIW (For what it’s worth), the Catholic Church was guilty of refusing to fully condemn Hitler’s genocide, trading with him throughout the war. If anything I should consider that as evidence of the subjective personal nature of Christianity.

" A Christian does not advocate "by any means necessary." "

Neither does Objectivism. Remember the happiness definition, “Non-contradictory joy”. Rationalization is by its nature a tight little circle of reasoning that appears good on the surface, perhaps perfect in its logic except that it’s in contradiction with reality. Because man exists with reality, rationalization is the anti-thesis of the road to greater happiness.

" I don't know what AFAIK means, but what you said is incorrect. Productiveness is doing what Jesus says. "

AFAIK means “as far as I know”. Acting to promote ones happiness (as defined by Objectivism) is productiveness. Objectivism doesn’t list every detail of how that’s accomplished, no more than Matthew, Mark, Luke, John do so for Christian productiveness. Both merely list Constitutional-like principles, narrate examples through stories and leave us to free to apply them to our lives. Christianity’s definition of productiveness is no more specifically defined than that of Objectivism. You know where to read those of Objectivism it if you wish.

" Objectivism seems to state that anything is good as long as you use some logic and it is sustainable. "

If a behavior contradicts higher values it’s not good. That’s also true with Christianity as your example shows.

" Objective: Earthly happiness Methodology: Any method as long as it uses some manipulation/understanding of cause and effect "

Wrong. You’ve read happiness’s definition by Rand and you’ve read what it's limited to. You’ve read some specific higher values that Objectivism insists logically follow from that definition, and I’ve told you that deviation from them makes one a non-Objectivist. But you persist in staring at A and calling it B. You persists in wanting it to be “any method” when I’ve repeated over and over that only specific higher methods follow and are recognized by Objectivism as being moral. This may not be something that you want to recognize, but by now, there’s no excuse for ignoring it.

You claim that Objectivism’s connotatively hedonistic. I took it that you recognize Objectivism’s features that denotatively contradict hedonism, but you thought that the behavioral results are the same. If that interpretation’s wrong, please correct me. Otherwise I ask again, please give an example of a behavior associated with both. You’ll find that all of the extremes that hedonism “connotes” contradict parts of Objectivism. Non contradictory joy, remember…

" On war: she clearly said what I quoted. Her subsequent followers might change her opinion. "

She didn’t say we need to “get hit” first, unless all aggression is what you’d call getting hit. Iraq protected, promoted and supported terrorists who attacked us, people around the world and its own citizens. That doesn’t even include their failure to abide by the 1992 cease fire conditions, their attempt to kill our ex-president or their almost daily attacks on our jets over the no-fly zone. That’s all aggression. Any one of those justifies our destroying there government. Mix that with their symbolism to our enemies, their strategic geographic position among them and their WMD capabilities, and it made our attack a moral imperative according to Objectivism. Of course, dozens of Christian organizations like the Catholic Church and United Methodist Church (which I was once a member) aggressively opposed it. Objectivism does not lend itself to such subjective manipulation on important policy decisions.

" Also, why would it be wrong, presuming those countries weren't a threat to the US, to leave the rulers in power? Tbe dictators are clearly using reasoning to acheive their personal ends? "

Actually, they’re using theology to achieve their personal ends. Maybe I should hold your values responsible and consider them more evidence of Objectivism’s superiority. [smile]

I appreciate your thoughts and energy in discussing this. You have a lot of natural curiosity that should help you in whatever direction you choose. Whether our discussion on this continues or not, I think that you need to focus on eliminating statements that you make that contradict what you already know. A few times above I think that you knew that you claims of Objectivism contradicted its doctrine, but made them anyway. There are no contradictions in nature. Ayn Rand said that reasoning is the practice of non-contradictory identification. When you find what you think is a contradiction, examine your premises. As you identify commonality and draw conclusions that have withstood tests of contradiction, you can rely on them as a foundation for other conclusions. You can’t do that if you allow contradictions to go unaccounted for.

Discussions of my opinion of Christianity and abiogenesis are broad topics, and I don’t think that they are necessarily critical to resolving the question of hedonism in Objectivism. I’m happy to go over them (although I’m not going to try to disprove Christianity) but we need to resolve our current disagreement first.

I was just a Corporal in the USMC. I got there in 18 months with all meritorious promotions, but the field became impacted for further regular promotions over the next 3 years. Thinking I was really hot, I began to express my anti-authoritarianism attitude (immaturity) and didn’t work for any further meritorious promotions or buy into the responsibilities that went with them. I liked being the best at my job but non-cooperative with the politics. I wasn’t impressed with the rigidity of USMC bureaucracy, the inefficiencies of the intelligence community and the independent thinking of many of the senior NCOs and officers. It wasn’t for many years later that I understood that those problems are ubiquitous, and one just has to accept their existence and work through them.

Thanks for the kind words on the family. I’ve got to get a new photo of my son Rush if he looks like a girl. LOL! No biggie, he was often confused with a girl as an infant.

Best,
Bill

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.