Ron Paul said in book he doesn't agree with Ayn Rand philosophically

[Dustancostine]

I’m admittedly ignorant on the tenants of objectivism, but as far as I could tell from my reading of “Atlas Shrugged” all those years ago, objectivists seem to detest charity – even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity – and see that it is sometimes necessary – but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals. In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

This is incorrect:

From Ayn Rand's Playboy Interview:

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

From The Objectivist 1966

The fact that a man has no claim on others does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others--a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal....

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste--then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it, and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

 

[jemartinsen81]

Yep, that's all one needs to completely understand Objectivism.. a magazine cover.

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

 

[Dustancostine]

I wonder what she would have thought about the neo-con idea about spreading democracy by force.

Ayn Rand on spreading "good" by force:

From Capitalism an Unknown Ideal

An attempt to achieve good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man's capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man's judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one's mind, is not a value to anyone, the forcibly mindless can neither judge or nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes. Values cannot exist outside the full context of a man's life, need, goals, and knowledge.

 

[Kludge]

Sorry Kludge you are mistaken.

--Dustan

Radical libertarianism in the form of minarchy only to protect property (from which all rights derive). Sorry for my poor choice of words.

 

[Dustancostine]

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".

Ayn Rand's position on Libertarians:

From The Objectivist 1971

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before, I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so called "hippies-of-the-right" who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by th concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Harry Binswanger a disciple of AR

The libertarians... plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute....

In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the libertarians are tying capitalism to the whim-worshiping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future.

While I don't agree with either Rand or Binswanger on compromising to reach common political goals, you need to understand Rand's contempt for libertarians. She was waging a philosophical battle, any deviation is a compromise and would undermine her philosophy.

On the other hand, you have to form alliances with those with similar goals regardless of their philosophy to achieve things in our political system. That has been the beauty of the Revolution.

--Dustan

 

[Dustancostine]

There really isn't much difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism. At its best, Libertarianism is the political implementation of Objectivist ideas. Objectivism is a moral philosophy on how one should live one's life. Other moral philosophies generally come from religion (i.e. God determines what is right and wrong), but Objectivism is derived from reason and observed reality. And Objectivism is the only moral philosophy that places the individual as paramount. All others (as far as I know) allow that society may sacrifice an individual for the good of others (i.e. Socialism).

The problem that many Objectivists have with Libertarians, and the reason Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians, is because Libertarians usually arrive at their conclusions for utilitarian reasons. For instance, an Objectivist would say that the income tax must be abolished because it's wrong to steal. A Libertarian may say that the income tax must be abolished because we need to decrease the amount of revenue that government receives so we can decrease spending, because it's better for the economy, or for any number of other reasons. But all of these reasons are based on the result of getting rid of the income tax (it's better for society to not have it than to have it). Objectivists have a problem with this because the Libertarian that believes this will change his mind if he is convinced that the result of having the income tax is better than not having it, whereas the Objectivist will still be against it because it's morally wrong, independent of whatever result it may have.

In short, Objectivists see Libertarians as having many of their same political beliefs, but no moral foundation supporting those beliefs. For those that are Libertarians, but were former Republicans or Democrats and became Libertarians because they see it as simply an alternative, or they see the waste in government, these are the ones that Objectivists disapprove of, because these people are prone to sway back and forth. They have no innate belief that initiation of force is simply wrong, and will approve of the initiation of force (not to be confused with retaliatory force, which is perfectly acceptable to Objectivists and philosophically-based Libertarians) if they belief the result of that force will make an overall improvement.

Ayn Rand is by no means a perfect person, but the Objectivist philosophy is logically sound. I would highly recommend learning more about for those that aren't familiar. And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.

For a better understanding of the ideas, you can get a brief introduction from this series of videos. It's not specifically about Objectivism, but about Collectivism vs. Individualism, so it talks about the differences more than promoting them (but it does seem to be slanted in favor of Individualism):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJqSsrFDiSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0

And of course, there's the classic "Philosophy of Liberty":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

BTW, we're not really assholes.. I think a better word to describe many of us would be arrogant, or at least we have the appearance of arrogance. But that's because we have a solid philosophical foundation on which to base arguments. If you put a bunch of us in a room together, that arrogance tends to go away since we're all pretty much on a level playing field.

+1

 

[nickcoons]

You are of course correct in that criticism, so here's some quotes from interviews with Ayn Rand herself. She goes as far as to call Libertarians "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people".

Yes, I'm familiar with Objectivist views on Libertarianism. I thought I pretty thoroughly explained that in post #39 of this thread.

 

[Dustancostine]

Quoting nickoons,

"And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion."

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

I know the "god" debate is a waste of time, but outside of math, I would love to see any evidence of the "non-existence of something", in particular conclusive evidence. Conclusive evidence of the non-existence of something would require omniscience, and although Objectivists are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, I'm pretty sure they haven't achieved omniscience yet.

I am not trying to be a a-hole and Nick's statement, as you pointed out, was a logical fallacy. But what he meant was, that there is a mountain of evidence for existence (like everything that has ever occurred), and not one shred of it points of the existence of the supernatural.

This is why I do not consider my self an atheist, but when asked about god/religion just state that I have no belief or logical reason to hold those beliefs.

--Dustan

 

[Dustancostine]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

BTW: This statement has been over looked in the ensuing debates. Ron Paul did not say that he disagreed with Ayn Rand philosophically, but that he did not agree with certain tenets of her philosophy (religion, abortion). Which is different than not agreeing with her philosophy.

-Dustan

 

[nickcoons]

This is why I do not consider my self an atheist, but when asked about god/religion just state that I have no belief or logical reason to hold those beliefs.

The term "atheist" has often been used to mean denying the existence of god. In fact, I've even seen some dictionaries define it as such. A "theist" is one that believes in the existence of a god. Grammatically, an "atheist" is not one that denies that existence, but simply holds no such belief (one who is not a theist).

There have been other ways to supposedly clarify this, such as "strong atheist" (denies existence) and "weak atheist" or "agnostic" (holds no belief). As you, I fall into the latter category, primarily because of he logical fallacy that you've pointed out.

 

[MBA2008]

Quoting nickcoons,

"Quote:Originally Posted by MBA2008
Quoting nickoons,

'And for those that are religious, I understand that it can be extremely difficult to accept the idea that there is no god, even with a mountain of evidence pointing to that conclusion.'

I can't possibly think why someone would think Objectivists are assholes or arrogant.

Yeah.. funny . Arrogant maybe, but there wasn't really anything asshole-y about that comment."

Oh, I guess I'll just post this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole

and let others decide for themselves...

Again, quoting nickcoons,

"The default position is that God (or anything) does not exist."

Although practical, this does not constitute evidence, much less a mountain of it, of non-existence. The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."

Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence. Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."

Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require? And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?

"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."

I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old? How much stuff do we not know about? I'd bet it's billions of times more than the stuff we do know. It may not really be all that surprising that you/we haven't encountered evidence to your liking in what is literally not even a blink of the universe's eye (and to which your lifespan is not even a blink of the thousands of years' eye). And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

I acknowledge that you aren't denying the possibility of the existence of god, but it seems like you're getting a little needle in on people who believe in god, by saying "such a belief is almost absurd". It almost seems as if your mind is made up, and not as open as you profess.

"I can understand people having traumatic experiences in their life and something happening against the odds causing them to believe in a god because they can fathom no other explanation. But there is nothing logical about this. It's purely emotional."

I will assume that you are not implying that this applies to all people who hold a belief in God. Believe it or not, there are people out there who have a reasoned faith, and do not just believe based on emotion. You are certainly welcome to detest those who have blind and unconsidered faith, although I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.

Quoting Dustancostine,

"I am not trying to be a a-hole and Nick's statement, as you pointed out, was a logical fallacy. But what he meant was, that there is a mountain of evidence for existence (like everything that has ever occurred), and not one shred of it points of the existence of the supernatural."

Who says that God is supernatural? I did not say that. In fact, I would argue that a supernatural god does not make logical sense. Supernatural only means, "not yet explainable by human science."

For what it's worth, I appreciate your non-asshole-yness. You even go so far as to even avoid spelling the word out. If only every debate were this courteous...

And for the record, I don't think anyone's an asshole; well, at least nobody here.

 

[Dustancostine]

The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

MBA2008,

This is true. Whether or not a thing has been identified does not mean that it cannot exist. That is the definition of a thing; something that exist. But an existing thing cannot be discussed, named or described until it has been identified. Until a concept (as a product of human thought) has been verifiably identified it cannot be considered an existing thing, just a possibility. And all things imaginable are not possible and are certainly not necessary.

Nickcoons:
"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."

Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence. Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

First on anecdotal evidence;
From your wikipedia article.

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay"

Wikipedia on Anecdote:

An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident. It may be as brief as the setting and provocation of a bon mot. An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places. However, over time, modification in reuse may convert a particular anecdote to a fictional piece, one that is retold but is "too good to be true". Sometimes humorous, anecdotes are not jokes, because their primary purpose is not simply to evoke laughter, but to reveal a truth more general than the brief tale itself, or to delineate a character trait or the workings of an institution in such a light that it strikes in a flash of insight to their very essence........

An anecdote thus is closer to the tradition of the parable than the patently invented fable with its animal characters and generic human figures— but it is distinct from the parable in the historical specificity which it claims. An anecdote is not a metaphor nor does it bear a moral, a necessity in both parable and fable, merely an illustrative incident that is in some way an epitome........

As a rule, biographical anecdotes are considered too trivial or apocryphal to be included in a scholarly biography.........

Anecdotes are typically oral and ephemeral. They are just one of the many types of stories told in organizations and the collection of anecdotes from people in an organization can be used to better understand its organizational culture....

This is a good description of religion. Evidence that is pretty much made up to describe truths and culture. This is the purpose of religion. Not to get people to heaven, but to pass along cultural truths in easy to understand ways.

You also said that non satisfactory evidence is not evidence to the contrary. Meaning that non satisfactory evidence is not evidence that a concept is not a thing. Well applying negatives to everything you get satisfactory evidence is evidence that a concept is a thing.


But back to the philosophical debate:

So far we have:

Things Exist
Not all things are identifiable.
Not all concepts are things.
Satisfactory Evidence is Evidence that a Concept is a Thing

Nickcoons:

"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."

MBA2008:
Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require? And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?

"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."

You ask what evidence is appropriate, the answer to that is satisfactory evidence as you have already indicated. And satisfactory evidence is not anecdotal (by its very definition), but physical (I don't necessarily mean something you can hold, but that can be measured by physics).

And no he is not being hasty. Is he being hasty by not believing in Unicorns just because only a couple thousand years has passed by with no physical evidence? Of course not. The burden of the proof or evidence is on anyone who makes such a claim.

MBA2008
I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old? How much stuff do we not know about?

You have answered your own question. Things that we do not know about, we do not know about, which means that we cannot talk/discuss them. To do so implies knowledge, which we don't have.

Just because you describe a concept, whether it is Aliens, God or Unicorns, does not mean that it's existence as a real thing opposed to a concept of the human brain is automatically debatable.

MBA2008
And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

It has not. Anecdotal evidence is not satisfactory evidence.

MBA2008
There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

More evidence has been presented both direct, in the form of physical evidence, and indirect, from deduction, that extra-earthly life exist, than for a "God". For instance the very fact of life on earth is rather strong evidence of the probability of evidence of life else where in the Universe. (BTW: I don't believe in Aliens either, but there is probability of aliens, while I have seen nothing for me to believe in the probability of God)


MBA (I am not sure of your real name, mine is in fact Dustan),

I am not trying to shake your faith, but to make the claim that something exist you have to have good physical evidence that such a thing does. Claims of God lack this evidence and the burden of proof is on the claimer not the skeptic. This is where a lot of theist make logical mistakes, just because you can conjure a concept does not mean that it is automatically debatable as possible, even though we do not know everything, or even close to everything. Non-theist will win this debate every time.

On the other hand, the argument from faith is very undebatable. The theist claims that they have knowledge/believe in a spiritual being through emotion and extra-worldly spiritual sense. There is no debating what another person feels. This does not mean that something exist physically or is possible physically, but to the person who feels it, this claim is reasonable.

BTW, I have no problem with religion and think is serves many very important roles in our society. There is a lot of truths in the teachings of Christianity outside of the spiritualism, many times the only way to teach these truths and pass them along is through tradition and anecdote. Also humans have a tendency to be irrational and they also have a strong tendency to need to put their trust and faith in something, it is a survival technique. Without finding a suitable outlet for this, major problems can occur. Even though one does not need religion to be moral, I would argue that society in general probably needs religion to be moral. I would also argue that without religion people would put their faith into other things that would not be healthy to them or society. This is part of the problem with socialism today. Nietzsche proclaimed that "God was Dead", this has lead to our modern liberal movement which has replaced God (now that he is philosophically dead) with the state.

There is more I could say on this but I am getting tired. I hope you understand my view point.

--Dustan

 

[nickcoons]

Oh, I guess I'll just post this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole

and let others decide for themselves...

Given that this is purely subjective and open to interpretation, I don't see it necessary to argue this point, and will agree with you that others should decide for themselves.

Again, quoting nickcoons,

"The default position is that God (or anything) does not exist."

Although practical, this does not constitute evidence, much less a mountain of it, of non-existence. The fact that you (or humanity in general) is unaware of something, or has not witnessed it directly, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. In other words, the existence of something does not depend on your (or anyone's) knowledge of it.

I've already addressed this earlier in this thread.

"At some point, someone made the claim that he does. The burden of proof is on that person, or anyone else that makes the claim. I am aware of zero evidence of God's existence (anecdotal stories about things that happened in one's life are not evidence)."

Just like the above, whether or not someone can prove something exists has no influence on its actual existence.

That's certainly true. But then one must wonder, if one lacks the capacity to prove (or provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) the existence of something, why would one be so certain of its existence?

Sadly, I am about to quote Wikipedia; a transgression for which my whole post (indeed, my whole life's work) may be discredited. Alas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

As it turns out anecdotal evidence is, well, evidence. It may be evidence that you are not satisfied with, and maybe you are justified in not being satisfied with it, but evidence has been presented. I concede that the article which I reference does not give a glowing account of anecdotal evidence, but in any case, the failure to produce "satisfactory" evidence does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't say that it discredits your entire post, but the fact that you felt the need to provide a disclaimer first doesn't give much to your argument. At worst, you're wrong and anecdotes are not evidence. At best, we're arguing semantics. But you're right, when it comes to something as supposedly as important as god, I am not satisfied with anecdotes.

"Therefore, I do not deny the possibility of a god, however I see no reason to believe in a god."

Ok, so this addresses my points; you're keeping your options open, but let me ask, what evidence do you require?

I haven't created an itemized list, if that's what you're asking for. Are you asking because you feel that you have a method to meet my criteria?

If I observed something or became aware of new information, I'd evaluate it. I think it would be improper to attempt to create an exhaustive list of acceptable evidence, which might exclude other potentially acceptable evidence simply because it wasn't part of the original list.

To generalize, I would want scientific evidence, just as with anything else.

And if you're truly being scientific about this, isn't the following statement a little hasty?

"And after thousands of years of people claiming such existence, one would think that by now some evidence could be presented to support the claim. It is the lack of evidence after such a long period of time that makes having such a belief almost absurd."

I guess I'm just not impressed by thousands of years, considering that the universe is how many billions of years old?

I'm not sure how the ratio of the "thousands of years" to the time that the universe has existed has any relevance to this discussion.

How much stuff do we not know about? I'd bet it's billions of times more than the stuff we do know.

I would agree with that.

It may not really be all that surprising that you/we haven't encountered evidence to your liking in what is literally not even a blink of the universe's eye (and to which your lifespan is not even a blink of the thousands of years' eye). And as I said before, evidence has been presented, as limited and unappealing to you as it may be.

Please present it. Evidence that I'm aware of goes something like this:

"I prayed to God to make my life better, and yesterday my mom called me after not speaking to me for 10 years and now we're close again."

That is not acceptable evidence. And even if it happens repeatedly under certain variations, it is still not acceptable evidence.

If you know of any evidence that is more concrete than that, I'd love to hear it.

There's a case to be made for the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial life, even without all of the anecdotal evidence, but (in the event that such life exists) it could very well be (tens of, hundreds of (?)) thousands of years before such an observation could be made. Thousands of years is not a particularly long time, especially when contemplating something like God.

Humanity has been contemplating god for at least 6,000 years, probably longer. If the universe had only been 10,000 years old, which would mean that we'd have contemplated god for 60% of the existence of the universe, would that be more to your liking? Is there a particular threshold, as opposed to an absolute time, that you've set?

I don't see the seemingly artificial link you're creating between the amount of time we've been contemplating god and the length of time the universe has existed.

I acknowledge that you aren't denying the possibility of the existence of god, but it seems like you're getting a little needle in on people who believe in god, by saying "such a belief is almost absurd". It almost seems as if your mind is made up, and not as open as you profess.

My mind is, for the most part, made up about the people that believe in a god, but not about the existence of a god. My view on most people that believe in a god is that they do for a couple of different reasons, none of which are logical:

- There are the majority, that have been indoctrinated from youth. Not only are they taught of god's existence, but that it is wrong to question his existence. This makes having serious discussions about whether or not he exists difficult. And some people become far too agitated to have a calm discussion when you question their faith.

- Some traumatic event occurs in someone's life, such as an automobile accident where the doctor tells them that they don't know how they could have possibly survived. And with the lack of scientific knowledge necessary to answer that question, it must have been god that saved them.

It is a common human trait to not want to give up on something that you've put much effort into, which is often referred to as "effort justification." People, after learning about making a bad financial investment, will keep throwing good money after bad. If one shapes their life around a theological faith for 5, 10, 20, 50 years, or more, it can be difficult for one to objectively examine that faith and dismiss any inconsistencies outright.

I was raised Christian, and spent more than half of my life with that faith. I've been through this process. I was involved in a particular discussion with someone that pointed out the logical fallacies in my faith. Luckily for me, I'm stubborn and inquisitive, and those two qualities kept me involved in the conversation long enough to cause me to seriously re-examine my beliefs instead of just walking away and dismissing everything that was said.

I would love to have evidence of the existence of a god. I very much enjoy the idea that when I die, there is some sort of afterlife where I can continue on. Or that no matter what I do here, as long as my intentions are good, that I'll be in good company later because god will see me through it. So the lack of a belief on my part is not for lack of want.

I would also love to believe that when I come home from work today, there's a pile of cash sitting on my living room floor. But the want alone doesn't allow me to believe that. Because in a few hours when I get home, my faith in the pile of cash will be destroyed when it turns out there is no pile of cash. The reason someone can have faith in a god is because their faith will never be destroyed. At no point will they walk through their front door expecting to see god, but not find him there. They expect to see him after death. But after death, they're put into a coffin and buried where their body decays and they cease to exist.

Such a result is far less desirable than an actual afterlife. But just as you've mentioned that lack of evidence to support something is not evidence that it does not exist, so too is an emotional want not a logical reason to have a theological belief.

"I can understand people having traumatic experiences in their life and something happening against the odds causing them to believe in a god because they can fathom no other explanation. But there is nothing logical about this. It's purely emotional."

I will assume that you are not implying that this applies to all people who hold a belief in God. Believe it or not, there are people out there who have a reasoned faith, and do not just believe based on emotion. You are certainly welcome to detest those who have blind and unconsidered faith, although I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.

I don't detest people unless they impose their will on others, and even most of those people I don't detest. There are those that seem to have a reasoned faith, but that is quickly dispelled once you engage them in debate about their faith. Every single "reasoned" argument that attempts to prove god's existence that I've ever heard has been circular. Take this one for example:

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

The gist is this: The proof that god exists is that without god you couldn't prove anything.

And here's another:

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

All six of the points made there can be easily refuted.

There are many cases of supposedly reasoned arguments for god's existence, none of which I've seen hold any water.

Who says that God is supernatural? I did not say that. In fact, I would argue that a supernatural god does not make logical sense. Supernatural only means, "not yet explainable by human science."

More accurately, it means "outside of nature," which would pretty much mean that god would have to (in most theologies) be supernatural. If he created the universe, then he must exist outside of it. Otherwise, he wouldn't exist until after he created the universe.

 

[DriftWood]

I know i shouldnt but i cant help jumping on this handgranade.. (I dont mean to disrespect anyone or anything, just reason about it..)

I have a bigger "beef" with agnostics than the religious.. because agnostics hold that stating that there is no god is unreasonable. (The religious usually just ignore reason when it comes to religion.)

The agnostic statemnet that there might or might not be a god, is not reasonable. It makes it seem like its fifty/fifty. Maybe there is a god (choose any definition you like) or maybe there isnt, both possibilities are equally likely. Reasonable people do not allow this kind of agnostism about any other subject about reality so I dont see why the existance/none-existance of god should be any different. People dont say that there might or might not be a man living on the moon, or that its fifty-fifty that santaclaus exists, or that its equally likley that neon-green elephants exist. The fact that we have never come across such a thing makes it more likley that such a things does not exist. So the fact that there has never been (in the history of science) a direct observation or experiment that gives evidence to support the therory that there is a god means that it is unlikley that there is such a god. Its not fifty fifty. It more like a billion to one. If after all this it still is not reasonable to state that there is no god, then nothing else we hold true about reality is reasonable to hold. For example just because every time we have dropped a ball and it has always fallen to the ground, is no reason to hold that the ball will fall to the ground the next time we drop it. In a agnostic world gravity is not reasonably proven. If we could not hold such things as reasonable truths, then science and even practical life would be impossible. Imagine walking if we could not take gravity for granted.. doing anything would be impossible.

(Ofcourse it matters what the definition is used for god. The more details that are attributed to god the less likelier it is that such a god exists because a god with lots of attributes is one that is easier to observe and test for. The most likley god is the one with least properties. Its the first movement. The first cause that set in motion cause and effect, the movement that set in motion the big bang. However this is not how most peple define god, they hold that god holds all kinds of attributes. It is alive, it can think, it is good, it can intervine, it created life, it put souls into people, it grants life after death etc.. all these things make the god less likley, not only because it makes it easier to test for such a god but also in the cases where testing is impossible it becomes unliklier because we are left to guess at the properties and the more we guess the more likley it is that we get some of them wrong.

Pheeew.. I just had to write that down. I have not heard any good reasonable counter argument to this. If you have one then please correct my thinking.

Cheers

 

[nickcoons]

The agnostic statemnet that there might or might not be a god, is not reasonable. It makes it seem like its fifty/fifty. Maybe there is a god (choose any definition you like) or maybe there isnt, both possibilities are equally likely.

You are lumping together "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" and "50/50", and they are not the same thing.

My wife and I both work long and hard at our careers, so we have a designated "date night" that is set aside no matter what. About 8 times out of 10, she's not ready to go at the specified time (you know women when it comes to picking an outfit ). As this time approaches, I wonder whether or not she'll be ready in time.. I experience uncertainty. But uncertainty does not imply 50/50. In fact, given our history, it's more like 80/20.

Most agnostics would not tell you that they think there's a 50/50 chance that god exists. Most would probably put the odds at something much more in favor of god not existing. Your implication that agnostics think both possibilities are equally likely is a huge misrepresentation.

 

[DriftWood]

You are lumping together "maybe there is, maybe there isn't" and "50/50", and they are not the same thing.

My wife and I both work long and hard at our careers, so we have a designated "date night" that is set aside no matter what. About 8 times out of 10, she's not ready to go at the specified time (you know women when it comes to picking an outfit ). As this time approaches, I wonder whether or not she'll be ready in time.. I experience uncertainty. But uncertainty does not imply 50/50. In fact, given our history, it's more like 80/20.

Most agnostics would not tell you that they think there's a 50/50 chance that god exists. Most would probably put the odds at something much more in favor of god not existing. Your implication that agnostics think both possibilities are equally likely is a huge misrepresentation.

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

Cheers

 

[nickcoons]

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

I would agree that taking certain actions, like baptizing your child just in case, is silly. In Catholicism at least, one is judged based on his beliefs just as much as his actions. Baptizing your child while not holding the faith is not very good "just in case" insurance.

 

[mczerone]

I would agree that taking certain actions, like baptizing your child just in case, is silly. In Catholicism at least, one is judged based on his beliefs just as much as his actions. Baptizing your child while not holding the faith is not very good "just in case" insurance.

I, personally, believe that there are no gods, but do agree philosophically that acting 'just in case', without having faith in your choice, is not going to score any points with an all-knowing God anyway. Which is why I find "Pascal's Wager" ridiculous: living your entire life piously just because it is a better bet whether or not there is a heaven neglects the personal reflection required to really have faith in any religion, established or personal.

 

[Mongoose470]

God can never be proven. How do you prove God? What testing, analysis, experimentation could establish a being as "God?"

We haven't even defined God in clear terms. What does "god" mean? We can't even agree on that.

Defining a monotheistic God is utterly impossible because any definition would establish a limitation or a boundary. According to monotheists God is infinite. Infinity is undefinable. Does that imply monotheists contradict themselves with faith in doctrine? yeppers.

 

[Pbronstein]

"When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Wonder who Ayn would have supported in the Soviet Afghan mess.