Atheists improve society

The Orange County Register ^ | 11 June 2002 | Richard Cheek

[thinktwice]

In your June 7 editorial on the moving of the Ayn Rand Institute to Irvine ["Ayn Rand in O.C.''], you stated that you took issue with some of Ayn Rand's positions, including her ardent atheism. In today's world of terrorism and conflicts fueled by ardent religious beliefs, it would seem appropriate that you would take issue with ardent religious people, not with any atheists.

[thinktwice]

a large leap that isn't supported by the prior text.

Only comment I can make is that Ayn Rand covers her topics thoroughly, and I only provided fragments; so I'd suggest you obtain a copy and read the rest of it.

[Hajman]

Only comment I can make is that Ayn Rand covers her topics thoroughly, and I only provided fragments; so I'd suggest you obtain a copy and read the rest of it.

Perhaps I'll do that. (It's not very long, is it? I have a very slow reading speed.. and not much time lately to do much reading..)

-The Hajman-

[thinktwice]

The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value -- and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.

I was tired last night and your comment regarding the above line confused me. So I gave up for the night and thought about it, but I'm still confused.

You wrote ...

this last statement makes a large leap that isn't supported by the prior text. That is, ethics should extend beyond one's self. The question is...why?

I'm confused over your "large leap" statement. It seems self evident that ethical matters can be simultanelously local (personal), communal (family), societal, national, global, and/or eternal (mystical).

[thinktwice]

It also assumes man can't live without reasoning (which has been proven false by a good number of times with people raised by such animals as wolves).

Where did you get this: that man can't live without reasoning?

I'd say that humans won't live long without reasoning; like, how many trucks will miss you when you wander around on a freeway without realizing you should dodge trucks?

The thought of growing up with wolves has storyteller charm, but what does one become when raised by wolves? Without being able to learn anything about human civilization -- deprived of education -- that child's lifestyle and lifespan would be akin to those humans that discovered fire, or the wheel.

[thinktwice]

I enjoyed the article. But it makes a few large assumptions. For example, it assumes something should be good or bad

Assuming something should be good or bad is a large assumption?

If so, please explain.

[thinktwice]

It's not very long, is it?

Tha Objectivist Ethics is twenty-two pages long; which is about the same length as Aristotle's Poetics, and is -- at the least -- on par with the Poetics in philosophical importance.

[thinktwice]

From post 1559 ... A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil.

Thoughts upon finding a pebble.

Just after my shower this morning, my bare foot detected something small and tiny on the bathroom carpet. It was only a small pebble, but it was also an eye-opening revelation about the magnitude and scope of sense perception capabilities inherent in the human body -- one of my multi-million sensors, one neuron on the bottom of my foot, told me ... "Something was there."

And so it goes with the human mind, with the beyond-the-marvelous capabilities contained therein.

Capable of rational thought, using reason, using the mind, man can acquire knowledge, live well, marry and support a family, and man can create -- art, literature, music, inventions, architecture, etc.

But humans can avoid thought, and live blissfully -- for a while; smoking pot, for instance. And humans can avoid reality and live the "just do it" life -- for a while; until, for instance, the inheritance runs out.

But avoiding thought and reality means avoiding truth, truth being the recognition of reality using reason (I felt it, I looked at it, it was a pebble) and knowing truth, especially those automatic truths (IT'S A TRUCK!), is important to one's life.

But there's more to it than that. Avoiding thought and reality can happen in insidious ways and your very mind can be rendered inoperable -- even destroyed -- in the process. Who might want to do that?

The human mind can be molded, wounded, rendered inoperable even destroyed by teachers, preachers, or seekers of power. The young and the weak are especially vulnerable. And when the mind is effectively destroyed (irrationality is a symptom) there goes the potential to use the mind as God designed it to be used -- to think and reason.

"Why would anyone do that?" you ask.

Well, there's money in in, for one reason; but the better answer comes from Ayn Rand saying ... "If men are to be ruled, the enemy is reason."

[thinktwice]

Perhaps we should move from the concept of reason (which we both apparently understand differently), into the concept of objectivism (not naturalism).

The "pebble" of post 1567 turned out to be a sesame seed; I'm going to frame it.

Cheers.

[Stone Mountain]

An atheist says there is no God.

Actually, what the majority of athiests will say is that there is no compelling reason to believe in God.

[dollface]

Thinktwice,
I have several questions about your original posting (Atheists improve society):

"Most religions teach a contempt for earthly life..."
1) How many times have you experienced this personally in order to draw this conclusion? Or, to what study are you referring that has taken an accurate poll of the subject?
2) Are you referring to "most" world religions, or just those confined to the United States?

"In today's world of terrorism and conflicts fueled by ardent religious beliefs..."
1) Do you really believe that the world's present conflicts are fueled by "ardent religious beliefs" or isn't that just window dressing to cover up what really fuels the conflict: human pride and selfishness?

-Dollface

[thinktwice]

Your questions about the article posted would best be answered by the original writer of these article words ...

In your June 7 editorial on the moving of the Ayn Rand Institute to Irvine ["Ayn Rand in O.C.''], you stated that you took issue with some of Ayn Rand's positions, including her ardent atheism. In today's world of terrorism and conflicts fueled by ardent religious beliefs, it would seem appropriate that you would take issue with ardent religious people, not with any atheists.

Most religions teach a contempt for earthly life and that to reach some imagined "heaven" is the main goal of life. Religions have consistently resisted progress. Examples include the scientific understanding of the heliocentric solar system and evolution, abolition of slavery, medical developments such as the use of anesthesia and women's right to vote and choose contraception and abortion.

Nonetheless, I'll attempt to answer.

"Most religions teach a contempt for earthly life..."
1) How many times have you experienced this personally in order to draw this conclusion? Or, to what study are you referring that has taken an accurate poll of the subject?
2) Are you referring to "most" world religions, or just those confined to the United States?

1. How many times? Asking "how many times" is rather naive, but one anecdotal story speaks volumes ... I've read that the famous priest that built the California missions (Junipero Sierra) took supplies from converted indians (those that had completed "their" missions) to feed and convert indians building new missions -- without worrying about starving already converted indians because their souls were ready to go to God -- and they did starve.
2. Yes. Islam and Christian based religions being prime examples.

"In today's world of terrorism and conflicts fueled by ardent religious beliefs..."
1) Do you really believe that the world's present conflicts are fueled by "ardent religious beliefs" or isn't that just window dressing to cover up what really fuels the conflict: human pride and selfishness?

1. In all of history, ardent religious beliefs have fueled war; the present war on terorrism is a prime example.

[dollface]

Humankind’s refusal to rely upon God is what causes even the “religious” to err. There are no strings attached from God to us. And we are free to make mistakes or deliberately hurt one another. Man has free will. God gave us a great blueprint to live by, but we refuse, at every turn, to live by that blueprint: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” Not a bad little plan, wouldn’t you say? Sounds like something that even Hollywood would go for. But mankind is an odd creature. God says, “Here is the way that you can live so that you won’t hurt each other.” And yet we, saint and sinner alike, refuse to live that way. Then when the world becomes an unkind place to live, instead of admitting our own wrongdoing, we blame God. We say, “if he was really a good God, he’d come down here and fix everything. He wouldn’t let bad things happen.” We act like God should operate us like puppets on a string. We want to be completely free of God but then curse Him when we are.

God doesn’t impose Himself upon us. This freedom we are given can’t be mistaken for indifference. My sons are in their 20’s and have free will and I wouldn’t dream of telling them how to live every minute of their lives. They are grown up guys and I love them enough to lay down and die for them, but I don’t go around sticking my nose into everything they do. I can’t follow them around to make sure they don’t hurt other people. And yet I love them and it would pain me to see them hurt another person.

This is how God is. He’s a father who has released his grown children, whom he loves enough to lay down and die for, into the world. It pains him to see us hurt each other.

The error comes when the actions of people are interpreted as the ways of God.

God is love. You can know that He loves you Thinktwice. You are valuable to him and worthwhile to his kingdom. When you are ready, He will come to you. But He will not impose.

[thinktwice]

God doesn’t impose Himself upon us.

Meanwhile, you impose your wrong beliefs on me while perhaps forgetting that your "God" Biblically imposed the Ten Commandments upon all of mankind.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump

[Kevin Curry]

Atheists use reason to solve human problems, to make their way in life, to seek happiness and to live with the human community. Ardent atheists are assets to our world.

Atheists were responsible for the annihilation of more than 200 million men, and women, and children in the 20th Century alone. When it comes to human slaughter, the most ardent religionist cannot hold a candle to history's more renowned atheists.

[thinktwice]

Atheists were responsible for the annihilation of more than 200 million men, and women, and children in the 20th Century alone.

The 20th century mass slaughters were primarily the work of tyrants and dictators using a combination of racial cleansing ( Hitler, a Catholic) or the imposition of the ethics of self sacrifice -- altruism -- on their own people (Stalin and Mao -- Communists).

The facts show that 20th century mass slaughters were not the product of the rational fact that God does not exist in reality; those slaughters were the product of either hatred or the irrational ethics of altruism.

[dollface]

There's a saying: If I say something once, I'm speaking my truth. If I say it more than once, I'm nagging.

Now. What else do you wanna talk about?

[Busywhiskers]

"Religions have consistently resisted progress. Examples include the ...abolition of slavery..."

Oh, and let not forget how religions have held back progress by creating such regressive institutions as hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, and how they, in the west anyway, provided the philosophical basic on which we have built such terrible things as the notion of inalianable rights, the rule of law, and scientific discovery. </sarcasm off>

[thinktwice]

I'm speaking my truth.

In other words, truth -- to you and all those devoted to mysticism -- is "relative."

Within Objectivism ...

Reality is that which exists.
Reason is the standard for knowing reality.
Truth is the recognition of reality.

In other words -- in the real world -- mystical beliefs have nothing to do with truth.

Good luck with your relative "truth."

[dollface]

Don't know if I could live with your "version" of the real world and your "version" of the truth. Your version is actually much more illogical than mine.

Let me get this straight: You don't like God. You're angry at him and his 'rules'. So therefore, he doesn't exist. And if other people are aware of him, then they live in an alternate reality. Furthermore, if they are aware of the single most powerful force in the universe, and have the gall to talk about it, then you brand them a dreamer.

It would seem to me, impossible for a human being to have awareness of God and not talk about it. In fact, if God does not exist - they why are you so p***d at all his rules? If he doesn't exist, then logically, there are no rules. An entity which does not exist could not have created rules.

And I said I wasn't going to nag at you again. But it's just too hard to resist.