The God Question
As some of you know, there are a number of people in the gulch who follow a religion, but also follow the principles of Objectivism. At least that is what they say. The following is an except from Rand which clearly states her position when it comes to God. I would be interested to know how the religionists get that square peg into the trapezoid hole.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.
There are some important philosophical issues that those who agree with Rand's type of atheism often choose not to address, particularly with regard to how and why we exist at all. Moreover, there are a lot of facts of reality that lack unsatisfactory answers at this point in our existence, and understanding of it. It is entirely reasonable to say that those questions are not presently answerable, and move on with our existence.
Religionists like to "fill in the blanks" with regard to anecdotal, often personal, evidence of what is currently beyond their ability to understand purely by observation and reasoning. Often this is like forming a hypothesis. The biggest difference between atheists and religionists is that religionists believe their own hypotheses until proven wrong (which is not scientific), whereas atheists believe nothing until "forced" to confront an objective reality that is inconsistent with their previous understanding. The atheist approach is consistent with the scientific method.
maintained a genuine respect for some religious thought
since I was about 38. . honoring the unknown as a
majestic and mysterious reality which is worthy of
awe and appreciation, as a way of saying it. . like a
youngster looking up at the stars saying "WoW!" -- j
.
light at the end of a looooooong tunnel, and then,
through the light, I saw God. . . . . and she was black." -- j
.
p.s. I'd pick someone like this::: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=r...
.
And yet, he was an atheist.
Seems to me to be a direct connection of sorts.
Please examine
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding....
While there were several deists amongst the founders, please look through the list for atheists amongst the signers of the founding documents. I don't think you will find one. This is not to say that all of them might not have been in error. The founders may have been in error, but to say that religion and capitalism are incompatible is most definitely an error.
When Ms. Rand emigrated to America and embraced it for coining the phrase to "make money", do you think that America was an atheist country?
What I said has not been refuted, nor can it be, despite the number of people who agree with you vs. those who agree with me.
The argument that you started was about the incompatibility of religion and capitalism. While deism is not equal to Christianity, it is a form of religion that is compatible with capitalism, thereby refuting your argument.
You are the one spouting revisionist history. In fact, I almost said so in my previous response, but did not do so out of professional courtesy.
Excuse me while I drive over to Jimmy Hale's Mission in downtown Birmingham and torment all the sheltered homeless people.
I'll stop donating so they can't eat also.
I don't see any wiggle room around that and I must make amends.
Think I'll start by no longer donating to Christian organizations who try to help help beat up wives and abused children.
It's evil to help all those whining women and snot-nosed little brats who need to get by on their own.
Now retired, I don';t know what to do about brave Christian groups and individuals who go into scary prisons to help bad men become more evil.
During the 90s I never should have used a Christian organization to sponsor an impoverished kid in Africa until he grew up.
There's other evil Christian things that I can tell on if I had all day.
Oh, we misguided Christians are so freaking evil that I am now thoroughly ashamed of being one. Excuse me while I go outside and kick this feral cat I've feeding. It's black, you know, just like my goodie two-shoes Christian soul.
Excuse me while I go off to do more evil with another independent thought.
Satanosaur it doesn't have a "good" ring to it.
Hey, somebody else gave me a point.
It's a 2 at 11:14 AM.
Is someone trying to rehabilitate my Christian evil?
I read them all and saw damn little dogma. Sounds like talking points to me.
Word origin
C17: via Latin from Greek: opinion, belief, from dokein to seem good
Of the voluntary kind the kind of organizations
That the founders of this country
Envisioned as a safety net for the mentally or
Physically handicapped.
Instead of a welfare state.
While I agree that that many aspects Of ALL organized religions are evil.
I know of many wonderful loving productive inventive people who are Christians.
I don't demand people think like me.
and I damn sure don't let others make me think like them.
You didn't need house insurance. If a storm blew your house down, neighbors would find time to help you build it back up.
Of course, it would be expected of you to return the favor should a need arise..
Ha! It just hit me that there were no building codes back then either.
In a volunteer basis.
Particularly the Catholic version. There is almost as much chicanery in the politics of Catholicism as there is in Washington. It's just quieter.
I can provide tons of biblical references, in fact commands, that are in perfect line with capitalism.
I will use one that some could play both ways.
Jesus commanded, you must love your neighbor as yourself. Does that mean to sacrifice yourself to your neighbor? No. Could that easily fall into rational self-interest? Sure.
What was the old saying. Be careful of the toes you step on today, they may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow.
Loving your enemy as yourself, MEANS not acting in a way that in the present with a view to the future where your actions would come back to bite you in the ass.
Also the love your neighbor quote, was followed by the statement that by showing kindness, or respect to your enemies you are setting yourselves apart from the general populace, because they only love their own friends and families.
The Bible specifically states that a "Name" is better than fine gold, which is your reputation. How does one achieve a "golden" reputation? Rational self-interest.
This does not mean that one simply does not react violently when expressing "Righteous indignation." Jesus overturned the tables in the temple of and chased out the money changers with a whip.
I think some in the Gultch are so quick to use their own dogma of anti-religion and anti-god, that the blinders are completely put on whenever this discussion comes up, just so the "Atheists" have a forum to try and beat up on those who may believe in God and practice a religion to feed into their own self-importance and intolerance.
Ayn Rand had no use for religion, however she also said this.
In Ayn Rand’s words (from “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?”): “one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly.”
If "MY OWN MORALITY" is based in Religion and God, then I am obligated to act accordingly even if that view differs from yours and the the atheists view. After all Ayn Rand was a proportionate of her own morality, as every individual is entitles their own morality even if it is a copy/paste of a religion.
Acceptence of everyon's A-Moral right to be themaster of their own morals, and dictator of their own morals and ethics, with or without religion is all just as bad.
You just saved me from making a response. Thanks.
The basic concept being that since Religion, God, Supreme Being, Answering only to thyself is paramount you in essence would have over 7 billion separate moralities always in conflict with no standardization at all except the individual concept of reason.
Reason if taken to the individualistic extreme, would also validate the liberal mindset since they apply their own morality, and reasoning and their own version of logic which is just as diametrically opposed to Ayn Rand, as are some of the people here in the Gulch expressing their own personal version of reasoning and morality.
THAT is the flaw.
To the Jedi the Sith are evil..."Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” These concepts lead to an objective morality."
To the Sith the Jedi are Evil..."Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.” These concepts lead to an objective morality.
Each opposing side has their own solid defined set of values, ethics and morals. Each are objective within those constraints.
The complete individual applying the same means that each individual's ethics, morals and definition of good and bad are then all co-equal.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8.of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
American Psychological Association (APA):
objective. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obje...
Reasoning and "objective" depend in large part on the point of view you are approaching it from.
Subjectivist.
noun
1.Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.
2.Ethics.
any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments are statements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of the individual or the community.
American Psychological Association (APA):
subjectivist. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved June 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subj...
Also "Good" and "Evil" are premises and concepts that originate with religion...
Primitive Homo Sapiens biting into his first apple: "MMM Good."
Same H.S. Biting into a poisonous berry; AAARGH, Bad.
The concept of good and bad are as old as mankind. C'mon, now.
I suppose the berry was EVIL and intended to maliciously kill the eater?
Here’s how I interpret what you’re saying, and it has nothing to do with Objectivism – as far as I can see, it is the complete opposite.
1) Values, ethics and morals exist outside of objective reality – they are totally subjective.
2) A person can only be objective “within the constraints” of his values, ethics and morals – his values, ethics and morals cannot themselves be derived by objective reasoning.
3) Being truly “objective” is impossible, since a person’s “point of view” exists prior to and independently of his thinking about ethics and morals (or anything else).
4) Fear is superior to reason as a means of apprehending reality: “There are no atheists in foxholes.” (A false statement, by the way, likely dreamed up by a religious mystic who approved of using fear to compel adherence to some religious doctrine).
This is your basis for asserting that Objectivism is “flawed”?
Please tell me how Objectivism is the 100% flawless perfect summation of all intellect and reason.
I was pointing out one point I see as a flaw. I did not say that the majority of Ayn Rand's philosophy was bad, but the opposite.
I am not personally equivocating any "morality" to capitalism, or socialism, or communism.
Capitalism is proven "better" morality aside, ethics aside.
In my opinion, the second you inject the terms, Morality, Good, Evil, into the conversation you automatically open the discussion to religion, and epistemology and other non-fact based views.
Morality, Good, Evil, are all subjective in every way.
Atheists on the other hand prayed to God when they were in foxholes pinned down and they thought they were going to die.
The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as during war ("in foxholes"), all people will believe in, or hope for, a higher power (and there are therefore no atheists).
There are no atheists in foxholes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...
I think you've confused me with someone else. I would never say the right to self defense is a flaw. It is one of the few legitimate times to use force.
However, there are so many posts on this topic, I'm not sure that yours was meany for me.
(Gimme a Tylenol)
Ha...I just described government!
Therefore, we cannot reject religionists out of hand until we know something about them, which will become evident through their posting.
The important thing is that we recognize 10 simple rules that took mankind 10's or 1000's of years to integrate; culminating during a purely natural event...Those 10 simple rules, articulated in a conscious language aligns with everything Rand stood for. Prager University has great video on that. Add to that the observations of quantum entanglements, value, order and disorder and it all comes together quite logically.
Please explain about these 10 simple rules. Are you suggesting some well publicized David Letterman top-ten list that culminated with his show? And who is the “we” that you assume includes me and everyone else on this forum (at minimum)?
I recall some important “great truth” rules I learned: “Reality exists.” and “You cannot consume more than you produce.”
And “What is morality? Judgment to know right from wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act on it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.” That’s where my old wrote learned ideas take me.
Oh wait, I just remembered a bunch of those reliable old rules that might be what you meant:
“Slow and steady wins the race.” and “He who hesitates is lost.” (Aren’t those contradictory?!)
“Never run with scissors.”
And the most important rules. “Don’t use a screwdriver as a pry bar.” and “Don’t take any wooden nickels.” (That one is 1000’s of years old for sure, now translated as nickels instead of sesterces or shekels.)
And “Never give a sucker an even break nor wizen up a chump.” Most folks don’t remember the second part of that rule. [sarc]Thus dooming society.[/sarc]
Also please specify the “purely natural event” of rule-level interest. Was it perhaps the Toba supervolcano eruption (in what is now Indonesia) of nominally 70,000 years ago that may have produced a genetic bottleneck in human evolution? It wasn’t a quantum event like the cosmological big bang, or quantum mechanics-related, like the spectrum lines from distant stars, or how lasers work.
Were you suggesting perhaps rules from some favorite religion? I somewhat like the vigor of “Kill for the love of killing. Kill for the love of Kali.” I’m less thrilled by Donald Trump petty jealousy, “You shall have no other gods before me.”
Or are you talking about things like “Don’t murder!”? Religionists usually mistranslate “murder” as “kill” from Dead Sea Scrolls and other antiquities with such ideas, and they throw in a bunch of outmoded thee/thou/thy/thine’s to make it sound official, as though used with the approval of Major League Baseball.
I'll hazard a guess that most scientists (and I, too) accept some casual usage if the point is not crucial to the discussion. For example, saying speed to mean velocity or force as mass or molecule to describe an ionic compound. It becomes unacceptable when someone vomits up some new age (or old religion) babble and attempts to attribute some definition that is contrary to standard scientific usage. This applies to the “quantum event” nonsense that Olduglycarl is putting forth. So if you want to express some idea and don’t quite have the precise or accurate terminology, please use plain language and go for it. Just don’t get all huffy and pontificate about your special usage with some vague claim about a definition somewhere on the internet, while failing to annotate where the claim comes from.
Sorry about the length of what follows, but it’s my freshly written “Phancy Physics” for regular folks who are smarter than dummies. Or basic vs fancy physics in plain English.
Many things follow the rules of classical mechanics, often called Newtonian physics after the great physicist/mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton. Often the math involves simple algebra. Suppose somebody drops a baseball off a high building. The baseball falls downward over time (call the time at any instant t), so we might want to think about how far the baseball has fallen after t=1 second or t=5 seconds, and so on. As it falls, gravity makes the ball fall ever faster, the velocity downward increases with time. (Velocity is speed with a direction, such as 20 meters per second downward, and I’ll use meters instead of feet to make calculations easier shortly.) The change in velocity over time is called acceleration, and that acceleration is set by gravity, a constant (unchanging) value at the surface of the earth, where we walk around and play baseball and fly airplanes. To find the distance the ball has fallen over time, the calculation is simple. Distance downward = ½gt², where g is the acceleration constant for gravity 9.8 meters/(second²). Let’s round that to 10 to make things easy. After 3 seconds, the ball has fallen ½×10×3². Or half of ten (that’s 5) times three squared (that’s 9) or 45 meters. That wasn’t too bad.
Now consider two cars, one going east at 50 miles per hour and one on the opposite side of the highway going west at 60 miles per hour. How fast do they pass each other? Add the values 50 + 60 to get 110 miles per hour relative velocity (in the opposite direction.) That’s simple, too. Thank you Sir Isaac.
The Newtonian/classical world makes two important assumptions.
We assume that the baseball can drop any amount in a smooth continuum of values. 3 meters per second, then 3.1 meters per second, then 3.2 meters per second, and so on as it accelerates.
Also, lets assume that things behave normally at normal velocities. The cars go past each other at the sum of their velocities. No funny business in the calculation.
Quantum mechanics: values can not be anything in a smooth continuum. At microscopic sizes, some values can only change by fixed/discreet/quantized (pick your favorite word) amounts, a quantum. An electron orbiting around an atom can’t have any size orbit, only some very special orbit sizes. When an excited electron drops to a lower orbit, it releases a specific quantum (discreet amount) of energy. We can see the result from large collections of microscopic atoms doing that at once, for example in the specific reddish color of a neon sign or the green and violet colors from mercury vapor fluorescent lights. These things do not produce a nice smooth rainbow of colors like a hot glowing filament in a tungsten light bulb, only some very specific colors.
Addressing the definition of “quantum event”: it is an event that has a fixed “quantized” change that is not described by classical mechanics. No mystic interpretations. Does the big bang qualify? Arguably, because it was a microscopic singularity that could not be described by Newtonian physics. Were specific energy levels involved? Hard to say at this late date of t = 15 billion years. What about light from HeNe lasers in early supermarket scanners? The energy transitions were absolutely quantum events, and they produced light at the precise wavelength of 632.8 microns.
Relativity: At normal speeds, things behave themselves. When things move relative to each other at rates near the speed of light, the calculations become squirrely in a non-intuitive way, though still subject to specific math rules/equations. Suppose a rocket is going from the Earth to Mars at a velocity u=50% of the speed of light and another one is going from Mars to Earth at velocity v=60% of the speed of light. Newton would have said, “Just add the speeds u + v, so they’ll pass each other at 110% of the speed of light.” But he would be wrong. At these speeds, which would be called “relativistic,” we get Einstein’s universe. The velocities add with the funny equation u+v/(1+u×v/c²) where c is the speed of light. That says they pass each other at 84.62% of the speed of light. Clearly not the world of classical physics. What if the relative velocities are tiny compared to that of light, say 10,000 miles per hour or slower? The u×v/c² part becomes close enough to zero that we get back to simple addition of classical cars “speeding” past each other on the freeway. Similarly, the many different microscopic quanta of light from a hot tungsten filament blur together, and look like a continuous rainbow of colors.
We'll leave stimulated emission, time dilation, length contraction, and the like to some other discussion at a later date.
You must be an engineer. Talk about getting huffy.
I never get huffy. Tolerant, perhaps - OK puffy but not huffy.
I know Newton, Thank you very much.
I also have passed quantum physics 101.
So, your lessons, while accurate, were not necessary.
My son is an engineer and quite a good one. Wrote the book on consulting.
When he first got married, which was before pocket calculators, I suggested that he should bring his slide rule on his honeymoon so he could figure out what to do with accuracy.
My point was that there are people, including myself, at times, who have what they think may be the germ of an idea but cannot express it in scientific terms. Even if they are full of frijoles, let them down easy. There have been steps forward in science when an idea that perhaps is 50 or 100 years old, and was scorned for being nonsense in its day, but turned out to be true, and if it had been listened to would have been a great leap forward. It almost happened to Einstein and he even had the correct jargon.
I started as a physicist, was later an engineer in several disciplines, a CAD guru, an instructor, a writer, and assorted other things, not counting the pre-college low-skill jobs. In 2008 I even ran as the Libertarian candidate for the US House of Representatives in my district in California. (I got 5% of the vote against the perpetual incumbocrat.
I certainly wasn't suggesting you might be a huffy type. Just some persons get snarkier than I do, and that’s an unacceptable threshold to cross.
I couldn't tell if the physics stuff might be useful to you, or perhaps anyone else who might stumble onto that part of the discussion. In writing it, I produced something I can reuse for others who want a not-too-technical explanation of what some of the science fuss is about.
The reluctance to look at new ideas hits geographically close to home for me. One of my neighbors has developed a stupendously improved variant of the car/truck internal combustion engine: better fuel economy, lower pollution, handles multiple fuel types, lower part count, &c. A Fiat engineer told him he had “solved ALL the problems,” but they didn’t have the budget to get involved. Bobcat wanted it, but the deal got cancelled when the company got bought out. GM said effectively, “It doesn’t matter how great your design is, if we didn’t invent it in house. But we’ll invest if you show us the fully working prototype.” And his response is always, if I had the funds to build the fully working prototype, I wouldn’t need your investment.”
Twenty years ago, I had a little better luck as a customer in changing a software patching process for a large (in the top 5) software company. I was in a corporate group talking with a team sent to meet with us as important clients. I had experimented on my own and given full details of my approach. They said, “We can’t do that because, uh.” “Well that might work. No, we can’t because, umm.” “Hmmmm. Actually, we could do that.” (And so they did, saving probably several hundred thousand users a lot of time and effort.)
If it interests you...look up what a "Quantum Event" is...it has a specific description and definition...it's a couple of pages long...but it's Awesome!
Mankind at the time, not being aware of one's own awareness could not complete a quantum event without some outside trigger event.
It was obvious that mankind thought long and hard upon how to be good and successful without all the waring, killing and oppression they experienced.
These quantum events might very well be the results of quantum entanglements.
There is a whole lot more to it...it'll take an entire book to explain...one inwhich I'm working on. It takes the integration of many academic subjects to achieve. Once integration's have been made it is difficult to disassemble them into the proper order of events.
What ARE you talking about? Quantum entanglements? That’s a WTF?!?!?!
You don’t list any source for whatever your novel interpretation of language represents to you. A quantum event is not rare. (Billions occur constantly in every lit fluorescent lamp.) Not remarkable either—unless one wants to wax poetic about how many of the complications of the universe are so nicely apprehended with mathematics, like explaining hydrogen atom states by using Laguerre polynomials.
Quantum entanglements are what you get if your hair grows inside your skull instead of on the outside, and you don’t drink enough of those nice smelling coconut creme conditioners from the shampoo aisle.
How about this idea?! Lose the obfuscation, obnubilation, and ornamentation. Oh: O-O-O!
Explain yourself clearly, simply, succinctly. In plain English. Thanks.
But...good news, it'll be explained as plain as possible in the new book and I'll post a few chapter excerpts here to make sure all approve of the degrees of probabilities and objectivity.
Laughing...but I do plan to post as soon as I get the final product ok'd by the quantum folks I'm working with and the Julian Jaynes society (it all starts with Jayne's initial premise that man kind was not always consciously aware of his own awareness) to make sure I get it right.
Simple stupid right?
What part of any of this is not related to a reality we all might desire?
Your examples sound like “Don’t run with blue scissors. Don’t run with orange scissors.” “Don’t run with kitchen knives.” “Don’t cut your fingers when using box cutters.”
A single positive rule applies to all of that and more. “Be careful with sharp objects.”
Similarly, “Don’t blah, blah: wives, false witness, blame, murder. All really better as a single positive: “Be honest.” Or maybe “Be worthy of honor.”
Rather than belabor the point, George Carlin made it all very clear, and it’s available right here:
https://philosopherpoet.wordpress.com...
2). blah blah blah...was designed for specific problems of pre-conscious bicameral state of man at that time...and I have observed that still, many today still occupy this space between their ears.
3). Yes, more encompassing concepts like honesty, responsibility and honor are understood and preferred by those conscious and whom engage their own conscience. I get the rejection of the blah blah...we're grown up now dad!...but news flash...many have yet to be grown...a stunning example comes to mind...can we say islam and I would include Rome as well.
I remember George...miss him.
Maybe Jaynes did mention them describing the psychotic behavior once the inner voice was lost...maybe, this linage of a human like species never ever had a voice!.
PS...just preordered a new book on Jaynes written by the pres of the JJsociety Marcel K.
Are those "10 simple rules" the Juedo-Christian Ten Commandments?
If so, I suggest you read them again with the perspective of one question: How many advocate blind obedience to an arbitrary, self-proclaimed authority and how many offer good advice? I find that point of view very revealing.
Remember, every successful lier wraps their gotchas in a lot of truth. If they didn't they would get no attention or presumption of respect.
This authority they speak of is simply the physical laws of the cosmos that in fact make it possible for you to exist...pagan man needed to humanize it and be in fear of it in order to behave...sounds funny now...but that's how different we are now...or most of us anyway.
Now that's the dichotomy between pagan bicameral man, the teachings or Knowledge taught in a bicameral language to the bicameral brain...instead of sharing that knowledge in a rational, awakened or conscious language to one's mind...assuming one has connection to one. It's no surprise that even today, many are still in a pre-conscious state...the creatures in governments come to mind first.
There is Nothing watching over us...we each are accountable with consequences for what ever actions we take or not, it's inherent...like it or not, and it's your choice to act in rational self interest or to abandon all rationalities and harm others, contribute to the destruction of society and civilization creating disorder instead of creating Value that might be exchanged with others...a process that creates order.
Everyone here are the smartest people I have come to know but if your not familiar with the subject matter...your starting from scratch and I am forging new frontiers here, combining philosophy, psychology, anthropology, history, quantum physics, etc, etc...to explain and understand it all.
This topic has been explored several times here previously. It has naturally caused some rifts. I am of the opinion that it is of importance to those that wish to be doctrinaire and completely faithful in their Objectivist philosophy and those that wish to be faithful in their belief in a prime mover. I find that I am ambivalent about the matter. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. For myself, I am agnostic on the question, because it doesn't bother me what someone believes about another plane of existence as long as they live by reality on this one. A is A. The Objectivist position is, because there is no empirical evidence the question does not merit examination. It is arbitrary and faith is not proof. Thus no discussion is warranted.
A few interesting questions that will unfortunately seem pointed to the believers: Why is it too fantastic to believe that things evolved from nature and that we are just the lottery winners that became conscious of things enough to question our beginning, yet it is not too fantastic to believe that there exists a supernatural being that brought it all about? If a prime mover is required because of disbelief, then why isn't there a need for a creator of the prime mover? This supposition of course logically leads one to an endless paradox. Also one of the best arguments I have heard from an atheist was, "if you are a believer in one God, why don't you believe in the Greek pantheon of gods? Once you answer this question, you will understand why I don't believe in your one God."
For the believers, it has been my experience that St Thomas Aquinas has made some of the best arguments. In his work, Summa Theologica, he employed deductive reason to produce five "proofs" that demonstrate the existence of God. Some believe and see proof.. others see only unproven theory...
Such is the nature of faith. Logic can't answer faith; It can neither prove nor disprove such a theory based on faith. IMHO
Respectfully,
O.A.
Also, I was hoping to discover something new in ideology. Since learning about Quantum physics I have opened up to many strange possibilities, not to mention some fascinating ideas put forth by "Old Ugly Carl." Of course, you guys are still a bunch of wimps, but what the hell, you are my kind of wimps.
We must gather up all that was valuable in our ascension from prior memes or levels and keep on climbing. We were not meant to stagnate.
Indeed.
So we are. We could be in worse company. :)
Regards,
O.A.
I must confess that I love the Gulch. The posts can range from intolerable to brilliant with everything in between. But through it all, there is surprisingly little nonsense. As you know, I have particularly enjoyed your offerings, and I have learned much. Posts have sent me scurrying to my books or to our wonderful little library. Actually, Nerds are a better description for Gulchers. Why am I not surprised to find that so many have enjoyed the same books, movies and presentations that I have?
You and the site are exceptional lights!
Your material, humor and demeanor are greatly appreciated. :)
Best wishes,
O.A.
Today you might put me on another list, but I,for my own self interest will be inspired by the Hero list.
Your material, humor and demeanor are greatly appreciated. :)
Best wishes,"
Thanks O.A for summing up my appreciation of
Herb as well.
Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night
God said, "Let Newton Be" and all was light.
It did not last, the Devil howling, "Ho"
"Let Einstein Be" recalled the status quo.
Meet you at the B.A.R.
Well, nyah I don't care. Can't intimidate me by calling me a mystic either and I admire Kim Davis.
I view myself as a well-rounded peg that can punch through any trapezoid hole. One may argue that I can't but I just wrote that I can. So there.
I was "born again" during the 70s. Previously tried my best to be an unbeliever but there's just something about the details in the New Testament being so different than anything to be found in the writings of other religions. May have broken a rule with that last statement but I don't start such conversations here.
My faith really helped me get through 21 years as a state corrections officer. I'll never forget a very comforting feeling that suddenly flowed through me when I was on my back, struggling with an inmate over my baton and another baton that inmate took from another officer while other inmates were milling all around us.
I walked away from that without a scratch on me.
I could now kick off a sermon about the holy spirit but that's not allowed. I'm a rather salty believer anyway who'll say a naughty word in a heartbeat.
I never heard of Ayn Rand until the first AS flick came out. I'll hazard to say quite a few Christians have stumbled into the Gulch since then.
I've learned a lot here. But I don't want to be a carbon copy of Ayn Rand or anybody else.
I'm me! Me! Meeeeee!
BTW, how many times are we going to have this "religious" discussion? It really is rather pointless. I'm a Christian, and lots of people in The Gulch aren't. So what!
Just like how Ayn Rand predicted!
The only thing she left out was the let's make nice to Muslims who hate and will kill us anyway part.
Good philosophy provides tools for thinking. That is - using ones direct perception and rational ability to identify what's real and what's not.
One Objectivist I know uses the phrase, "Users of Objectivism". I like that - as in "users of the periodic table" or "users of geometry".
The real challenge of philosophy is validation of one's premises. Rand has done that better than anyone I know while standing metaphorically on the shoulders of Aristotle.
For example, while I believe in quantum physics I cannot agree with every new theory that comes along to prove a certain point. That doesn't mean I don't believe all the other stuff. (I'm not sure that's even clear to me.) Is it?
Here is where you ability to reason comes to the fore. People have many experiences they can't explain. Some times they come up with explanations that are not verified or verifiable. Some care about that distinction.
What are the benefits and risks of not caring about that distinction?
Before that we were hearing creepy voices.
That's the only time something like that happened to me and was way before I first inhaled and evolved into despising pot.
Make of it what you will.
That's a good one.
Never heard that one before.
NOW I've heard all the arguments.
Uh, I think.
Anyone have something else as original?
Sock it to me! Sock it to me! It's sock it to me time.
Circumcision was given as a law with a helpful health side-effect, as was much of the Mosaic Law. Back in those times, bathing was uncommon to say the least. Circumcision was actually a huge benefit to the women because of the significantly lowered risks of bacteria (and therefore infection) in those extra folds of skin. Look up the health reports in modern medicine if you don't believe me. That law was remanded (by Christians) as times changed and health codes of society in general have improved.
Studies have also shown that a regular, periodic day of rest is of tremendous benefit to the human body and psyche. Those who take one day off a week tend to go back to their labors refreshed and motivated.
The last observation I would make is that the original Mosaic law was given because the people refused the higher law Moses originally brought down. They refused to police themselves, so they were given what they asked for: a whole set of laws, rites, etc. Sounds kind of familiar to today's day and age now that I think about it...
Neanderthals were here before Cro-Magnon modern humans. So there is a Cain going to the mysterious land of Nod story someone may care to kick around since it has recently been proven we all have Neanderthal genes.
I still believe in that someone's name American military clergymen are PC forbidden to say in a prayer under the Obamanation regime.
That's just the way it is in this world.
I see God as on the receiving end on the other side.
Can I say that here? Seems only fair due to the nature of this post.
Just was off seeing whether some of your relatives had returned for some fish lately at:
http://www.dceaglecam.org/
I had not looked into taxonomy for decades. I see that birds have a Clade of dinosauria now so those eagles are modern dinosaurs but not quite like an allosaur.
I've watched eagle-like ospreys glide about and dive for fish at a lake my family has a house by in the Florida Panhandle.
That surprised the heck out of me as I watched fascinated through a catwalk of a grated metal construction.
They could not get past the catwalk and climbed FACE DOWN back to the ground.
being welcome here, and about the "soul" ... it's good
for discussion and interchange, don't you think? -- j
.
expansive thoughts in the cosmos? -- j
.
Cannot be done honestly. 1. From the system of thought known as Objectivism which rejects belief in favor of fact, evidence and reason. 2. From authority, it was what Rand said (tho' this is contrary to the precept of not using authority as a basis).
Now, I am one of those who accept the principle of fellow traveling. That is, it is worth discussing and hearing opinions of those with whom many if not all basic ideas are shared.
So, no belief test for the Gulch.
Another comment. Religion does not require a belief in the supernatural, just the acceptance of ideas with no base in evidence and only in belief.
I agree that everyone should have access to the Gulch. The only ones that I dislike are those who wish to challenge the atheism.
offa my mind, they might say. . I agree. -- j
.
"How one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well?"
Philosophy's scope is the problem of universals.
What is universally true for all people for all time? Any attempt to address that domain, regardless of its competence, is an attempt of philosophy. Most are not comprehensive, fully integrated and testable in reality. That's what distinguished Objectivism.
These universal factors are the common base upon which all the individual sciences and other disciplines sit. It is the common foundation.
Aristotle's seminal identifications of - what is, is; and it can only act according to it's nature, gives us all science, validity and freedom. It permits all of us to work with a common understand for words that we act on so we can collaborate effectively.
No mysticism, = not a religion. Then faith no longer works and reason must support the tenets.
The goods are real and delivered by earthly means but the whole process to them is "supernatural".
The movie "Oh, God" touched on this theory (very funny movie) Consider how old this universe is. Consider the dinosaurs who lived millions of years before man. If you put Earth's life on a clock face, the first 55 minutes would be the time of the dinosaurs and the last five minutes would be the length of time humans have been here. If you put the universe on a clock face, man's existence to date would be a fraction of a second. That is how long we have been here. To be honest, we don't really know how old is the universe. If you add in Einstein's theory of relativity, our universe could be a grain of sand on the beach of some other reality. The bottom line is, our minds have evolved to the point where we no longer believe in a god. or, at least, we shouldn't. My God is Mother Nature. Science. The search for something better. There is no other God.
i have influenced those who wanted an open discussion...but they are few and far between...
Eny (nickname)
Most of this has been worked out long ago and when a new immigrant arrives they agree by accepting citizenship to forgo their previous system of beliefs and live under our version. Consent given.
If they object no hard feelings and back they go..
No need to worship, just wonder about how to find out what mankind has not found out yet and how to apply that knowledge to live your own life. Finding out is, for sure, the most joyful thing a human can do short of some short term human interactions.
It is amazing how bright minds can, without a rational philosophy, run off in smelly brain farts about spooky happenings at the quantum level.
Kind of makes one go...Hmmm
and rightly you shouldn't...all that's quantumly required is that you at least "Appreciate" your existence along with existence itself. If there is a quantum response to that, it would be the reflection of value created and perhaps more to appreciate...You've heard it before..."It's Not mystical...it's quantum physical".
Fortunately, no guy in the sky stuff...the word: "God" is a pagan concept but I guess one can call the ether and quantum events what ever they want.
"If you add in Einstein's theory of relativity, our universe could be a grain of sand on the beach of some other reality."
Now that's quite a stretch ;-)
What are your rules of evidence before you say you think something is true? What is responsible behavior on this point?
Where religion has a stranglehold on the mind is by implanting guilt for doubt, by intimidation of authority, and impending punishment after death. The promise of immortality is the ultimate con game.
1. Existence and termination (the idea of annihilation of consciousness)
2. Existence and origin (abortion)
3. Existence and purpose, which then define "right" and "wrong" (morality in general)
4. Who we are (our individual relationship to the rest of the universe)
Rand posits and disavows the existence of God (primarily the Judeo-Christian definition), attempting to show metaphysically that it is impossible. Given the answers to the questions above and their absolutely profound implications and Objectivists' insistence upon observation and proof as the only acceptable standard, I fundamentally disregard the notion of an unprovable hypothesis as either intellectual laziness or intellectual avoidance. I also recognize, however, that each individual must make the journey themselves and come to their own conclusions on the matter because the consequences are literally life-changing.
I will only say that I have tested the hypothesis that God (the Judeo-Christian one) exists (the positive assertion) and found it to be true - not just once, but many times. In the presence of this evidence, I must disagree with Rand's hypothesis (a negative assertion). If I am to remain logically consistent, I must conclude that when presented with facts in opposition to a provided hypothesis, I must conclude the hypothesis to be false: the result of invalid definition(s), inference(s), or conjecture(s).
I believe that many people start with invalid definitions when asking themselves the "God question". Rand's statement above is an illustration "All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say...". I completely identify with her in asserting that this is rubbish. Either a thing exists and is knowable, or it does not exist at all. I agree with her that many of the common definitions are non-definitions, absurdities, or assertions of other such dubious thought processes.
The danger lies in asserting "Nothing I have been presented with seems reasonable" -> "Nothing exists and the search does not warrant the effort." First of all, one must accept that our own preconceptions can be our own worst enemies. Confirmation bias is a big problem and is compounded by the gravity of the question being contemplated. Second, we must examine ourselves to determine if we want to acquaint ourselves with reality - no matter what reality may present itself. This is probably the single most difficult question we can ask of ourselves because it requires 100% honesty and commitment to truth. It is the admission to one's self that no matter what one has previously studied, no matter what ideas and/or conclusions one has reached previously, one is willing to accept that one could be wrong. It is the quintessential conflict of self vs self.
The defining notion of God by religion becomes convoluted by preconceptions mostly by religions and controllers.
Because scientists have mostly agreed on the Big Bang theory from the evidence that supports it. The Big Bang has become accepted. But I think it requires a bit of "faith" to accept that every particle of matter in the entire universe would fit on the tip of a needle.
I have studied the precessional code and the incredible connection to the earth, sun and moon's dimensions as well as important vibrational frequencies.and can't imagine the impossible odds of the same numbers recurring.
It could just be a incredible coincidence but it might have another source.
Thanks for at least being willing to consider the notion. That is a bigger step than you may know.
"If you've read Ayn Rand and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for."
8/2015 I read Anthem, 10/2015 Atlas Shrugged,
11/2015 The Fountainhead.
I then searched Ayn Rand and learned more about her. I learned she was called "the enemy" of the Progressives, That William F. Fuckley Jr.
had panned AS in a very negative fashion.
He is who I think about when I think of Ellsworth Monkton Toohey.
I watched Ayn being interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1959, I was 2 (57 years later I for the 1st time heard it)
I have been influenced, as to the ABOUT section of this forum ."this is the site you've been waiting for." I signed up.
Regarding like minded individuals I find very much to agree with the posts and comments, and have been expanding my knowledge for my own self interest.
I have not seen a requirement for an undisclosed or arbiturary "common ground".
Is that your qualification? If so please define "certain amount"
I am apathetic to other forums and their tolerance of differing views.
"And I think this forum is much more tolerant of theists than most religious forums would be of atheists."
For the most part the people in this forum use their brains, but I've still seen significant intolerance. I think trying to compare one forum to another is an effort in futility, however. Ultimately, popularity does not declare truth. Truth is. Popularity contests are a distraction for the mindless masses. Philosophy is ultimately a personal decision. And those who are comfortable in their decisions advocate for their position while allowing others to decide for themselves.
But I have the right - and Rand herself affirmed it - to challenge hypothesis where contradicted by data. Reality is in the data - not the hypothesis. If I am asked to leave by a moderator, I will of course do so and take my paid membership with me. But I didn't acquire 10K+ upvotes by being anything less than a contributing member of this forum - despite my quibbles.
True. +1 And again I ask: is this a forum dedicated to the observation of reality, or is it restricted to 100% Objectivists? I find much of Objectivism to be applauded and I greatly appreciate and value the general tenor of the people on this forum. This is the only forum I have been a part of in which the general attitude is one of attention to truth rather than mindless partisan bickering.
Regarding "mysticism", I find it to be the proverbial (and entirely ephemeral) boogeyman in this forum. Many are more than willing to jump to the conclusion that anything related to a belief in God is verboten simply by labeling it "mysticism". To clarify, however: No, I don't believe that something exists outside of "reality". I believe that there are things which absolutely do exist but which we can detect or experience only under the proper circumstances.
Imperfect analogy: I have a telescope which when I have it pointed in the proper direction and appropriately focused allows me to detect a passing comet. But I have 20/2400 vision, so when I hand you the telescope, all you see is a big blur. Until you learn to use the telescope to work with your visual acuity and point it at the appropriate section of sky, detection of the comet remains out of your reach.
What if you demand of me to show you the comet with the naked eye? Is the reality of the comet dependent on the method by which one insists on detecting it, or does one have to be willing to use the appropriate instrumentation and methods?
If I have evidence that a fundamental premise is wrong, on which side do my objections fall? That is the fundamental dichotomy of the "God question".
From my standpoint, his beliefs are his problem and not mine.
Just as a helpful little saying, though I do not subscribe to Gestalt Therapy is:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, 1969)
In my younger days when at a party or a forum, I would provoke a discussion ranging from religion to economics opposing what I knew the group espoused. My wife would just roll her eyes as if to say, "there he goes again." Now, I just threaten to do it in order to see the eye-roll.
There are far too few people in this world who actually think. I applaud you for attempting to spur some action in "the little grey cells" (- Hercule Poirot)!
At the heart of religion in the abstract is that religion is a set of rules. Those rules dictate two types of relationships: that which we have with God and that which we have with each other. If there is no God, then those rules and the resultant behaviors are harmless rituals. The rules for interacting with each other remain relevant.
I am reminded of the apparent battle "creationists" and "evolutionist" seem to insist on having. Creationism is a theory to explain how things came to be. Evolution is a theory to explain how things (that already exist) come to change Each deals with a different aspect of the universe. There is no inconsistency in believing in each
Theists claim the existence of one or more gods, and also assume that such god(s) take an active part in human affairs: answering prayers, tormenting the Wicked in Hell after they die, making sure a college football player who loves Jesus catches a particular forward pass, sending a tornado to destroy a town of nice people for mysterious reasons according to his inscrutable will.
Deists hold that a supreme being created the universe with all intentions realized, but does not take an active role in the preordained activities. Essentially, created the universe and pushed the Run button.
So theists get more personally involved: Telescopes are built by man, man is fallible, telescopes are the work of the devil, Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest (with threat of torture) unless he denounced his discovery that disproved the Church’s notion, “The Heavens are fixed and immutable.” Theists torture the non-believer, behead the Wicked, or shoot homosexuals on behalf of their gods.
Deists don’t get upset when a scientist discovers their god’s mysteries and invents a lightning rod to keep common homes safe from lightning. The Evil will receive divine punishment eventually. Just take care in the mean time to lock up the robbers, murderers, snake oil salesmen (present major-party presidential candidate excepted), influence peddlers/money launderers (present other major-party presidential candidate excepted), brutals, and other breakers of Man’s laws.
Not under argument: Pantheists believe that all of reality is identical with divinity and god is all-encompassing rather than a distinct personal or anthropomorphic being.
Atheists reject the notion of natural and/or supernatural deities.
[Full disclosure: I am personally in this group. For me, the sun rising in the morning requires no deities—not the Aztec Lord of the Dawn Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli nor the Egyptian sun god Ra encompassing literally the long and short of it.]
Both theistic and non-theistic persons include destructive individuals. Historically, the theistic-motivated ones, and in modern times, those who attach to The State a godlike authority, effect congregated massive destruction, with millions of victims. Non-theist bad-actors generally cause damage at a personal scale with usually no more than tens of victims.
Don't get into a trust/belonging course of life. I saw the value of Rand's works when I came upon them when I was 25 in 1965. I saw the value because my father never taught us about a god but just taught us some basic moral principles about honesty, not stealing, and telling the truth, That changed when my mother died when I was 13 and my dad married a daughter of a itinerate pastor who immediately began trying to influence the younger kids and got three of the seven of us to become true believers in Jesus. My dad married because social services threatened us with foster homes.
I found that Objectivism was a lot of common sense with some extra hard thinking thrown in to keep from going all religious about it.
I see the main difference between the religious and the objective as with the father who was interviewed about his son who had recovered from three gun shot wounds who thanked god for the recovery rather than thanking or recognizing all the men and women throughout history who took the time and effort to find out how to treat such wounds. It is too easy to just thank a non-entity, that should just be recognized in cursing as the absurd, than to actually take time to find out what really happened to save one's self or someone else.
As for the mention of taking Galt's oath, that is one of those trusting/belonging things that I would thing Objectivism would counter.
.
so slowly, in little chunks, eureka moments, Albert Einstein
revelations, inventions, hypotheses and proofs ... it's the
awesome glue which holds reality together everywhere
which we just see a corner of, as we grow along! -- j
.
I think capitalism and religion are compatible.
I define Capitalism as the honorable use of capital to make more capital. Religion is nothing more than a group of individuals sharing common grounds.
In the case for Christianity, pure capital (Jesus) was sacrificed in payment of debt (sin) to free the debtor.
After the legal tender act of 1862 was passed, pure capital (gold) was sacrificed in payment of debt (greenbacks) to free the ultimate debtor (government). There is compatibility between the two groups of thought.
And if Capital is a stand-alone, there is reason to believe that God does exist. God fractionalized thyself into parts in the form of credit which pulls the demand forward into new stand-alone parts (us) which the parts act to do work (interest) in exchange for energy in order to grow.
As for Lazi fare. I am all for free market forces driving socio economic growth. However, there is a big problem: people cheat, steal, corner markets thru force, and fail to appropriately compensate the exhaustion of capital at proper value.
Delivering the news, Carlin, the newscaster moves on to his next story: "Scientists today report the discovery of a new number. It lies somewhere between 6 and 7. They have named the new number, "Bleen."
He who asserts the existence of a positive assumes the burden of proof of its validity. Its validity does not rest with the inability of someone else to disprove it. I do not yet know the cause of the universe. When I discover it, or am provided with the evidence for same, I will have discovered that it is but a part of the universe, and of course, will have simply moved the question one step further away (or nearer), your choice.........
By Starting in objectivism ones personal needs, wants and other philosophical aspects can become fulfilled,....but,
At some point the human psyche has an inbred desire, "compulsion", or need, to reach out and care for those whose lives, capacities, and "life" have not had the innate abilities, talents, and "good fortune" as the rest of society. Without that, what else separates us from the "Jungle" from which we come? What gives us the 'second level" of objectivism that shows us that compassion, and sharing , not only of our wealth, but our knowledge and life experiences is in the best interest of improving the future generations of "objectivist mammals", to ultimately better the entire world?
If adhering to a religion, and its accompanying "bible" of required beliefs makes some people feel better, its their business and not mine.
Perhaps there should be a website where people can construct their own "god" (like one constructs a burrito at chipotle), and assemble only the beliefs that the designer wants to include, along with ideas of "grace", "sin", "punishments for sin", and "methods of redeeming oneself". The website would give each god a name, and solicit members and contributions.
The most attractive "god" in terms of what it stood for and expected from people would expand its membership. Its time for competition among "gods", and not just a few big religions with conflicting tenets that are upsetting, supposedly handed down from centuries in the past.
Of course, this idea is politically incorrect, and I would probably be burned at the stake for promoting it.
It would be interesting if you expressed the non-economic views of Objectivism that you disagree with. It might make for an interesting learning experience.
I recommend using the AynRandLexicon.com site for some detailed understanding of Objectivism, concept formation, truth, reason, and much more.
I will be the first to admit that I am NOT an expert on Ayn Rand, or objectivism. All I know is from one reading of Atlas Shrugged and watching the movies. My interest in the subject is not a driving force in my life.
Now, you pose a simple question that has the potential for a very large answer. My belief in God is probably not compliant with orthodox Christianity. I believe in a God that is a perfect being, in who's literal image we are created, or organized. He is the ultimate scientist and does what He does through obedience to the natural order of the universe and a much better understanding than we currently have.
He gives us direction for our benefit and learning, but will not remove our agency since free agency is paramount to our progression and learning. Due to this, many times we make stupid, or wrong decisions and bad things happen to good people.
There are natural laws and when we go against a natural law there is usually a consequence soon after. So natural laws are somewhat self enforcing. God gives other laws that when broken may have consequences that are not immediately apparent. These laws are not given capriciously, but out of love and concern for our welfare. The basic theme of these laws is to preserve our free agency. Some people see that as a conundrum...a law restricting your actions gives you greater agency? As an example, the church I belong to has a rule dealing with health and what we should and should not put in our bodies. So, we believe that we should abstain from addictive substances. By avoiding them you still retain the ability to partake if you so choose. You also have the ability to abstain, if you so choose. On the flip side, if you become addicted abstinence is much more difficult.
Much of the to be and then newly was USA was based on religious principals. the concept of marriage betwen a man and a woman for one. the fear was establishment of a State Religion. Something many had left or fled Europe to avoid and with good reason.
All this becomes background for the development of what is called natural law or the laws that govern mankind from the moment of birth. Nothing to do with and superior to the laws of man. European royalty hated the concept Enlightened thinkers loved it.
Still much of what churches did or internally stood for found their way into the formation of churches within the new USA. What kind of churches. if i can do this off my head. Any religion that does not disturb the peace of the local population nor violate the Constitution. Thus child sacrifices were banned even though they were a tenet of an active religion. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pretty hard to accomplish as a sacrificial virgin.
In these days that philosophy would and does say you cannot kill men, women and children at the drop of a burkah. It was and is not a direct attack on the practice of religion but in direct support of the rights of man...and citizenship.
The French have directly attacked Islamics by singling out Islamic adherents. on the issue of face coverings. The USA simply said. ALL people must adhere to the notion of having their license photo taken and baring their face when directed to do so or asked to do so. An armed robbery on Halloween night would engender the same response.
Nut shell version. Some of us might see God as the source of all heavenly power without description, some see God differently and some look at nature in that context. Some believe in the Big Bang. theory. it matters not if it doesn't violate the peace of the area and it's inhabitants it's legal. What do they consider evidence. Depends on the definition. I hold the divined source of power in the country is the citizens. Or used to be before they crapped in their own church - nature so to speak and refused the responsibility. Doesn't matter in our system...except it led to such things as the 9th and 10th amendments and a lot more.
Evidence? See the recommended Lexicon. We deal in objective facts and reason.
There are states of mind/consciousness that are not so easy to put into words and that are not at the level of normal reasoning. To say automatically that they do not exist or that all of them are of no worth is a bit dogmatic.
The quote is not very well nuanced to the breadth of the space of human being and experience. It is well put against the complete BS of much of so-called spirituality but that BS aspect is not imho the entire story.
Oh wait!...that's exactly what their doing...no matter how you spell it, where it came from, I say "Evil" is an apt description.
And actually...the concept of good and evil/ order and disorder was realized by bicameral man way before some idiot decided to organize it into a religion. If mankind did not observe that if I take your stuff, you'll take mind or at least kick my ass...therefore...maybe I shouldn't take your stuff unless I can kick Your ass. We would of never survived this long if we didn't make that observation.
Early form of Reason by caveman perhaps? Laughing...
Never mind all the perverted inclusions that attracted all those is the other paganized religions of the time.
They wanted to be Government and had no mind to advance mankind into higher states of awareness because that would have put them out of work.
Load more comments...