RoR: Forum

Citizen,

At the possible risk of being perceived as "the bad guy" in this forum (which I cannot allow to matter to me because some things are more important than popularity), I'm really not going to argue this any further after this post... I'm going to make one last point, and after that, if you choose to tell yourself that the main appeal of the Big Three religions, and possibly all religions, isn't an addictive love of sado-masochism, then that's all you.

You can tell yourself anything, to justify anything you want... I can't stop you there, and I'm not exactly sure that I would if I could. All I know is that perversion is perversion, and it sometimes actually does exist... i.e., reality.  And for you to try and scapegoat me by saying that my awareness of the basic perversion in religion does NOT really exist in reality, and that it's all in MY "perverted" head, is the sort of oily cowardice that Ayn Rand calls subjectivism, which I resoundingly agree with.

It's not right because Ayn Rand said it; Ayn Rand said it because it's right. If Ayn Rand based her entire philosophy on some rubbish that one plus one is three, I would have nothing whatsoever to do with Rand at all, and would denounce her at every opportunity. It's her rightness that I embrace, not some zombielike, conformist, and sadomasochistic membership in a cult.  "Randroids" do exist, I must admit, but for the reasons that I've just stated, I'm not one of them. You can thump your Bible all you like and chant that I'm a "Randroid" over and over again, but it won't make it correct, and I'm confident that no real Objectivist will be fooled by any such argument you might make.

Which brings me to my last point in this post: Since Ayn Rand herself has denounced religion for pretty much the exact same reasons that I have, what are you even doing here?  Trying to convert us?

This is an Objectivist forum. Objectivists believe that reality exists, and must not be delusionally "re-shaped" by human whim. And that is precisely what religion is.

You don't have to have a cookie-cutter belief in all of Rand's ideas. All of us in this forum do not necessarily agree on all of Rand's basic tenets, but the one thing I think that we all have in common is the profound commitment to the idea that reality does exist, and that only rigorous logic and sober and uncompromising observance and acknowledgement of that reality will help us futher ourselves as human beings. Your spellbound love of religion contradicts this fundamental bedrock of the Objectivist philosophy, and is not merely some minor disagreement.

By that standard, you have demonstrated yourself to be a rabid subjectivist with your vehement promotion of religion. As such, this is not your niche.

Furthermore, it is unethical for you to try and reshape the basic essence of this forum into the sort of atmosphere where your sort can "breathe better": a pro-religion forum.

So, rail against me all you like after this, I'm through with this particular discussion.

Post 101

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 6:11pm

Orion:

Obviously you are annoyed with my anal probe crack.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 102

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 12:23am

Question for you, Orion, On the following:

Your spellbound love of religion contradicts this fundamental bedrock of the Objectivist philosophy, and is not merely some minor disagreement.

By that standard, you have demonstrated yourself to be a rabid subjectivist with your vehement promotion of religion. As such, this is not your niche.

Furthermore, it is unethical for you to try and reshape the basic essence of this forum into the sort of atmosphere where your sort can "breathe better": a pro-religion forum.

Why continue to even converse with Bill if he is not the type of person you wish to communicate with on this forum?

It is actualy you who is continueing the dialogue with him, it is you who opens the niche to him and his comments. This website does not need to be defended against the onslaught of Bill's postings. He is only responding to our engageing him in dialogue. If you do not want to read Bills postings, don't read them and do not engage him with your posts. Shrugg Orion, simply Shrugg. He has no more hold on your life than you give him, and you engage him by your own will. Don't let him get you upset there is no point in it. Own your life.

Although Bills goals are unknown to me, I doubt that he has a grandly useless conspiracy as to make this a pro-religion forum, you need not worry yourself about that.

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 103

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 9:18am

Hello, Eric.

You counseled our friend Orion: >>He has no more hold on your life than you give him, and you engage him by your own will. Don't let him get you upset there is no point in it. Own your life.<<

Wise words. I couldn't have put it better myself, although I probably should have tried instead of taking the opportunity to deliver a smart-ass rebuke to Orion.

You further stated: >>Although Bills goals are unknown to me, I doubt that he has a grandly useless conspiracy as to make this a pro-religion forum, you need not worry yourself about that.<<

True, no grand conspiracy, useless or otherwise. Nothing mysterious. I find it useful to periodically examine beliefs radically different from my own. One way or another I learn something. If that belief contains some truth, then I've gained a new perspective that allows me to know the truth more fully. If that belief is a menace to be opposed, then I better understand how to counter the "enemy", so to speak. (For the record, I don't view Objectivism as a menace.)

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 104

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:46am

Orion, Rat, et al,

At some point you just have to agree to disagree about this sort of thing. By the very definition of God as an omnipotent, supernatural being, there is not going to be any proof to be had for or against the "existence," if that word is even applicable, of such a being. I was a Catholic myself, and I tried and tried to find the proof. But all I saw were people having ecstatic experiences and pointing out coincidences as though the "hand of God" was affecting their life. I moved to a non-theistic concept of deity to outright denial. It was my search for something more that lead me to Objectivism, and here to this place. So, in a way, I understand the dilemma.

In other words, if you have no problem with an invisible, undetectable, unknowable being somewhere in the folds beyond the Nth dimension affecting your life, and if you're willing to spend time supplicating Him/Her/It to make your life better, and if you're willing to sacrifice your own earned goods and well being for the good of the cosmos, then go right ahead. Lots of people live long, healthy, even productive lives living under such an assumption. But it is an assumption, and it can just as easily be rejected and lived without. And plenty of people live long, healthy, and productive lives as staunch atheists, clinging to value and committing to the creation of more, better, and higher value for their own gain. To paraphrase Peikoff in Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, it doesn't do much good to argue with someone once they have abandoned the basic precepts of your argument. It's better to just let them be and go your separate ways.

Post 105

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:45pm

Eric, Kevin...

Thanks, guys... I tend to get into what I call my "canned food and shotguns" mode sometimes, when the issue at hand seems too important to let lie. I appreciate the grounding comments, they did help me.

O.

Post 106

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 7:47pm

Kevin,

Just wanted to point out, your statement, "By the very definition of God as an omnipotent, supernatural being, there is not going to be any proof to be had for or against the "existence," ... of such a being," is not quite correct.

Anything defined as, "omnipotent," cannot exist. The definition is a logical impossibility no matter which meaning, "all powerful," or, "infinitely powerful," you give to the word omnipotent.

Regi

Post 107

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 6:06am

Orion, Regi,

I'm glad I got you two guys together. Are those your real names? No insult intended; quite the contrary--they're very picturesque! In fact, they might be used for Ayn Rand characters, except that she is much more indirect!

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/01, 6:31am)

Post 108

Saturday, May 1, 2004 - 3:22pm

Rodney,

In fact, they might be used for Ayn Rand characters, except that she is much more indirect!

Firehammer is German. Any Rand preferred Irish names. Have you noticed?

(Of course its my real name! ;>)

Regi

Post 109

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 12:00pm

"When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me...
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be."

Post 110

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 4:45pm

"There will be an answer ..."

Post 111

Sunday, May 2, 2004 - 8:30pm

"let it be..."

please, let it be, no more beatles....please?

~E

Post 112

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 9:48am

Regi,

That, I think, was my point. Basically, god-fearing folk believe in something that not only doesn't exist, but can't exist, no matter how much they would like it to. Most of the Catholics I was in contact with never ceased to believe that god was omnipotent, evidence to the contrary or common sense notwithstanding. I still remember the long, quasi-theological talks I used to have with a Catholic group I was a member of because I tried to bring reason to bear on certain Christian principles and it never worked. (My personal favorite was whether Jesus could have actually been tempted by sin if it was impossible for him to sin in the first place...what fun!?!?!) And omnipotence is still taught by priests and the Church to their unsuspecting, cloudy-reasoning flock. So, yeah, it's a logical impossibility. But so is everything else in religion. Which is why I don't buy it anymore.

Kevin

Post 113

Monday, May 3, 2004 - 5:42pm

Hi Kevin,

You said: That, I think, was my point.

Yes, I know. The remark was not really directed at you, but the idea that a God could not be disproved. The trick when arguing with any Theistic apologist is to get them to define their God. You can almost always easily prove it a logical impossibility.

Regi

Post 114

Friday, May 7, 2004 - 5:35am

"You can almost always easily prove it a logical impossibility."

And there is no requirement to refute a claim which is not defined...

Post 115

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 6:51pm

Wow, this thread won't die. So...has Mel been up to anything heroic lately? Or does he only have one religious sick flick in him?

-Logan

Post 116

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 3:30am

Maybe he should get on with making Mad Max 4. I guess there is a small possibility of it being worth watching :-)

Post 117

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 4:44am

Logan, Matthew,

I thought The Passion was Mad Max 4.

Seriously, I think he is in the process of taking over Disney. Really, I'm not making this up.

Comcast Out, Mel Gibson In On Disney Takeover?

Regi

Post 118

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 7:52am