- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
There is much selfish satisfaction in sharing with friends and relatives. Memories are the priceless payments you receive in return.
Happy Holidays to all of you!
O.A.
I'll act like Scrooge did on Christmas Day.
There are four little kinfolk kids I want to see smile as they open their presents.
she never ceases to inspire!
Happy Xmas to all- and Happy Festivus for the rest of us too.
.......thus, "No other gods before (ahead of) me (reality)"...........Reality is prime.
Kwanzaa, Happy Festivus and rejoice all ye who
are here for another year!!! -- j
No, it is not an all or nothing....no man-made philosophy is.
It is amazing how the human mind can believe things are true based on the idea the mind cannot be involved. :) Merry Christmas.
The mind is always involved in all thinking, whether it is emotional or rational.
process of learning how humans should live on
earth, and among one another. . she is the only
person who has ever explained and demonstrated
capitalism -- a societal virtue which we have never
tried. . we should. -- j
I view Rand's philosophy as a guide for one's life. Most importantly, it is a standard which I can use to compare to situations and happenings that I encounter as I travel along the path of my life. With a little application, her philosophy makes it easier to navigate through life with integrity and honesty. As an example you can boil much of what she writes down to a few words. As an example: Pro- life good, anti- life bad. To make a decision about any life problem, take the time to figure it out by this standard and you will be amazed at how easy it becomes to solve..
Both groups need to spend less time polishing the chips on their shoulders and being offended by the other side.
Jan
This is a classic case of secular humanism embracing relativism to its logical conclusion.
I commented to him one day about that, and he pretty much echoed your 'why waste time on insignificant things like that' comment.
I reminded him of a quote of, I think, Robert A. Heinlein, which went something to the effect of, "all those little hello's, how-are-you's and such are really elements of "social lubricant" that let humans slide more comfortably through their lives."
Some time shortly after that, he, too, began to greet people with "good morning's" as he arrived for work. I believe that little bit of lubricant made for more smiles during the day.
Of course, it's your call...
:)
Even aspies can learn it easily. I see some benefit and no harm.
Jan
What chip are you referring to?
What is a chip anyways? Some self-burdened ideal or system of thought that one must spew onto uninviting audiences?
If not, please define it so we can speak from the defined context.
Your chip definition works for this discussion.
Your initial post in here was flinging an adamant position in the community's face.
Was your intent to posit her position as a big "A" Atheist, rather than a little "a" atheist? If so, that is not how the post reads. It reads more as an Atheist deliberately taking offense where none was intended.
Big "A" atheists by my definition are the ones that seize offense at any mention of God, or anything associated with same. For example manger scenes, ten commandments, etc. Little "a" atheists would be the tolerant, let people believe what they want ones.
Happy Holidays to you and yours Khalling.
Whichever greeting you prefer to eveyone in the Gulch.
Lets all enjoy the holidays in good will.
What does that mean? Perhaps I am having a senior moment.
Khalling - I guess I really need to buy a lectern :).
What is fantastic about the Gulch here which you almost cannot get anywhere else I have found is that if you posit an argument, you will be engaged seriously and not pejoritively denied access.
Religon is one of the wedges being used to drive us apart by people of all stripes, but especially by politicians.
Faith Vs Atheist
Catholic Vs Protestant
Christian Vs Muslim
Pick any two you see set against each other. In nearly every case the point is to drive controversy, not anything to do with the actual groups themselves.
Sexual issues - another social fracture line
There are others
"Faith vs Atheist"
An atheist uses just as much faith as a theist; their faith is simply directed "atheistically."
I can say this because we all have to make decisions based on absolutes; the source of those absolutes is the point of contention. If you say there are no absolutes, then you have already started in reverse because that is an absolute statement; as well, you would never be able to communicate because all communication would be couched in deconstructionistic verbiage and dislocation from an author's meaning.
Regarding the other two "vs." you listed are simply corollaries of the first one.
Overall, in order to remove social fracture lines, one would have to define the standards in most areas of life that we should all conform to to avoid the "fracturing;" however, the problem is who would define them and who would enforce nonconformity?
Identity begins and ends with choice. Choices are based on value. Value is based on perception of reality and hope of future outcome. The goal of philosophy and religion is to posit reality - in whatever form it may be - so as to clarify reality and potentially affect value and choice. It doesn't affect irrationality, however. ;) Whenever there is a choice, it is because there are at least two potential ways of choosing in any given situation. In any given group of people with diverse views, you can bet that some will take one set of consequences and others another. Thus "fracture lines". If there are no fracture lines, there is no choice at all and individual choice disappears, along with identity.
I respectfully disagree. If someone came up to me and said, "Happy Earth Day!" I would not return the greeting in kind, but I would also not be overtly rude by my response, if any; however, no matter how supposedly impeccable your manners, sacrificing your core beliefs in the name of politeness is helpful to no one and misleading to all.
My objective, as unto the Lord Jesus Christ, is to help others think about why they live in denial of Him and His Father, along with God the Holy Spirit. God, in this context, exists and is so divisive because it penetrates to the very bones and marrow of your physical being and rumbles around in your frontal lobe, disturbing the paganistic system of thought of non-believers.
I cannot make anyone change their mind, and the existence of God can be denied; however, not extinguished from man's thinking. The most convincing proof of this is the conviction that some thought processes in life are right and some are wrong (the moralistic argument for God as some have called it). A society cannot exist without absolutes and the difficulty that many on this forum have with what they see going on and want to "Go Gulch" is because there are absolutes that you cannot deny, set in place by institutions God has established from His creation of man. For the pagan (defined as one who does not believe in the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Lord Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament (just in case there is any confusion as to the God I am referring)), it is simply a matter of denial, not whether He exists.
I have no chips, axes to grind, or anything else, but to communicate the philosophy I believe and that God has established in light of the topics shared not his forum, similar to what followers do with respect to Ms. Rand.
I simply would define religion as a system of thought where a majority of knowledge is based on faith and not empiricism.
If you would agree with that, then I would say that most of man's knowledge and advanced systems of understanding are built on faith and not on empiricism. Yes, some would appear to utilize historical events to conclude that if you do A,B,C you will get X,Y,Z, but as we know, past events are no guarantee of future results.
Therefore, I would say that it is important to first recognize that faith is not useless. How did you come by your first educational knowledge? You were told various concrete facts, then worked to abstract concepts which are just as valid; however, faith that the person teaching you was telling you the truth was required in order for education to take place so that you have future education to build on.
The God of the Bible deals first with origins in His Word, not with some other concept upon which origins is dependent upon.
If you cannot deal with origins, then you are building a house on sand with all your other thinking.
Just give it some thought. I don't care if my thinking is called religion, philosophy, or mystical banana-head funny talk, you should take what I am saying and address that, vs writing me off as some religious zealot, if I understand you correctly.
I don't think you can say that I am not reasoning.
I do agree that not all belief systems are religion...there are systems of management in corporate america which are based in well developed analysis; however, I would say that they do make some assumptions about the human condition which are taken on faith.
A better question may be is to define when a system becomes a religion. Is there a line at all?
The key is whether you are following the right God. If you are asking which is right, then you will have to do some thinking and investigating. If you do not, then you may be lost forever.
The definition of religion really must be nailed down in a forum like this, so do you have one in mind? I am interested.
religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒǝn) n 1 belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny 2 any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief the Christian religion 3 the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers 4 chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns to enter religion 5 something of overwhelming importance to a person football is his religion 6 archaic a the practice of sacred ritual observances b sacred rites and ceremonies [c12: via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from RE- + ligāre to bind]
Collins English Dictionary. (Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2006).
Now, remember, lexicographers do not create the meaning of words; words' meanings are derived from usage and lexicographers study and exhibit those meanings for creating the listings of definitions. Additionally, lexicographers list different meanings of words (such as listed above there are 6 listed meanings) in decreasing order of usage.
When you really sit down and think about what religion is, there is only one system of belief in a "higher power" (as some may say) that does not rely on doing things in order to reconcile themselves with that "higher power" to have a relationship with them and that is Christianity. You do not have to do anything of merit to become a Christian because all the work has been done by that higher power himself. Simply believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins personally and you will be saved. Now, getting into who Jesus Christ is, did He exist at all, what sin is and what would you be being saved from for another program as I know that those who are the thinkers among us here will ask those questions, but that isn't the point of this post. The point I am making is that all the other religions require work on the part of man to achieve acceptance by that higher power. Now, some believe that higher power is Mother Earth (radical environmentalists), some believe technology is it (radical futurists), and some believe in other gods (religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc...). But what makes one belief system a religion and one not a religion? That is the question and the 5th usage above in the definition is applicable here, but doesn't really hit on the point we are trying to make.
I really need to sit down and layout what a religion really is...I do not think that the above dictionary definition captures it very well. It really has to start with why the belief is deemed necessary and why all people operate their lives in a way that appears religious.
I'd have no problem with "Happy Earth Day." If I truly had a problem with the sentiment, I'd merely reply with something like, "and have a good day" to them.
Additionally, perhaps something I said stirs some discomfort with you because I have made a point. If you are really objective, look at what I have said and respond to that, without allowing emotion and preference beguile you.
This is a site for those interested in the AS movies and the writer of AS and the philosophy she developed. If I remember correctly, her only interest in religion was to believe that it was nonsense and evil.
As an atheist (see the home page cartoons and quotes I've dedicated to Atheism Month on my site) and you'll understand my amusement at such postulates.
And those who might have read my posts here, too, will be familiar with my claim that liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican/left/right dichotomies pretty much equally demonstrate, each in their own ways, the "My side is Correct in its Beliefs and Your Side is Evil."
As for flanap and 'which religion is Right,' try discussing that with an Islamist who's got a knife at your throat....
As for the purpose of this forum, I was drawn here because I have very much enjoyed reading Ms. Rand's works, especially AS twice, and watching some of her works in movies.
A lot of my thinking concurs with Mr. Rand, but where it falls off the cliff is at the point of unbelief in the God of the Bible and that man is the end of all value since if you can reason into anything, then is reason really that valuable without absolutes external to yourself which are immutable.
Again, if I am in violation of the purpose of the forum, the moderators are welcome to bar me anytime. I hope to only bring some reasoned thought here which may not be the "party line" at times.
I admire those here who can make a reasonable argument for whatever they believe; however, that doesn't mean I have to agree, and I think they would also find they do not have to agree with me, which is usually the case.
Lastly, I do not think that you have accurately encompassed the purpose of this site in a comprehensive manner...it seems much more than you have stated.