They are defined as exclusively opposite because they are opposite concepts denoting opposite approaches to knowledge. Belief in the absence or contrary to evidence and proof cannot be anything other than the opposite of reason. An advocate of faith demanding proof is itself incoherent.

You are in no position to be calling out anyone for anything. Your posts proselytizing for faith in "revelation" and sacred text as authority over the mind have no place here. This is forum for those who advocate reason.

You vastly overrate yourself if you think anyone's source of pride is rejection of nonsense. Religion is a primitive, pre-rational form of philosophy of no consequence other than the destruction of those trying to impose it. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not a "born again" Jehova's Witness mentality. What are you doing here?

Your history is full of crap. Barton is no historian. He is an ex-elementary school math teacher turned evangelist whose idea of history is to find his religion in everything he sees, ignoring what he doesn't like. He is so discredited that he even had to retract fabrications of quotes he had dishonestly put in his own books, confusing his wishful thinking speculation with history.

The Enlightenment is so named because people became enlightened when they rejected the dogma and authoritarianism from the Dark and Middle Ages. The pursuit of individualism and rationality led to an explosion of knowledge and well being.

The Founding fathers of this country were well read in the ideas of the Enlightenment, particularly Locke, and it was in fact the philosophical basis for this country. Instead of reading Barton's imaginative interpretations, read a real historian, like Bernard Bailyn's classic Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

This is a forum for reason and individualism in Ayn Rand's philosophy, not for proselytizing religious faith with tortured re-writes of history and grandiose claims for your "depth" as you preposterously write off enormous institutions like the Catholic Church and its history as non-Christian in your tormented revisionism. Your dogmatic ignorance and lack of objectivity do not belong here.

Indeed it take a toll.

barwick11: "Without a Judeo-Christian foundation, there is *no* basis for morality, except for 'well, most people don't want it this way'"

That is patently false. Have you read Ayn Rand? Why are you here?

Not only is the foundation of morality based on the nature of man and the factual requirements for his living on earth, a "Judeo-Christian foundation" of mystic faith and supposed other world makes a morality for life on earth impossible. Subjective decrees of fantasy, subjective "revelations", and imposed duties of subservience explain nothing and are the opposite of any kind of permanent foundation. Rejecting rationality in formulating morality based on the factual nature of man and his requirements for life makes no more sense than accounting for the weather with speculated demons and gods. You don't have a "foundation", you are issuing irrational dogmatic decrees.

Even Objectivism is a belief set. What each person must choose is which set of beliefs to follow and what set of rewards one expects to achieve from adherence.

What I was pointing out was that many of the posts on this thread were attempting to treat "Christianity" as a single, homogeneous belief set rather than a variety of widely varying belief sets, which can lead one to erroneously conclude many different things. When one recognizes that the individual sects vary WIDELY in their belief sets - in fact even contradicting each other on various points - it then becomes illogical to denounce all by inclusion (fallacy of guilt by association). One must individually address the individual belief sets in order to prove or disprove their validity.

There are many common sense ideas that were adopted along the way throughout history by people in religious-dominated societies, to such an extent that they became part of the culture and known as part of the commonly accepted "religious beliefs". But they did not come from the religious premises themselves and were in spite of it. If this hadn't happened there could not have been an evolution that led to the Enlightenment, and we would still be in the Dark Ages.

But the kind of mixed premises I am referring to are more fundamental. American Christians for the most part live their lives, and consciously and rationally work, in pursuit of their own values and dreams here on earth. This is in complete contradiction to the essential Christian ideals of other-worldliness, submission, sacrifice and faith even while occasionally paying lip service to it on Sundays. If their actual sense of life becomes undermined by a rise in religion on a broad scale, then the society is doomed.

The religious wars between various sects with different rituals and dogmas are not relevant. Ayn Rand rejected all of it based on fundamentals.

Both. It has no concept of separating them.

Yeah well, I don't have the power to do it lol...I just suggest things...that never come to be.

The first amendment was included because of experience with endless battles between religious sects for domination and imposition of state religion. It was not an endorsement of mysticism, sacrifice and other-worldliness. The founders of this country were not followers of ancient mystery cults, Tertullian, and Augustine wallowing in the wretchedness of life on earth in search of another, supernatural world.
Drop the obnoxious preaching to us that is we who need to "READ", with tortured polemical references to "First", bizarrely twisted to mean religion was being put first and above all else. Read the history yourself of how the major influences were the Enlightenment, not "ROME" and mysticism, which could not possibly have lead to this country, its spirit, and its success using reason to live on earth.

Oh that's nice of you... I've somehow violated the rules you think exist here. One topic leads to another dude... nothing is independent in and of itself.

Unless you want to do some homework yourself and read a book I suggest (because obviously you are not familiar with the facts presented in it), then I think we're done.

The book is "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He set out in his thesis to disprove the Bible. He became a Christian.

*sigh*

Have you ever seen Abraham Lincoln? How about Julius Caesar? Homer? There's varying levels of evidence to support all of those men. And similarly, there's a level of evidence to support the life of Jesus Christ, and his deeds and works, and his apostles, and their deeds and works, etc.

So please don't go around saying there is no such thing as a "rational Christian".

And your second half of your first sentence... I'm going to choose not to fly off the handle on you for that one. I'll just ignore it unless you decide to continue with it.

That would be handy. Thanks.

Yes, it is a "battle" between religious "sects". It would be like you arguing with someone else who claimed to follow the teachings of Ayn Rand, but her teachings were irrelevant if some authority figure said something that contradicted her teachings.

It is true that a basically moral society is necessary, but they didn't have a concept of any other basis for ethics. An ethics of individual self interest was implicit in the Enlightenment, but was not properly or fully formulated. The moral right of the individual to his own life, liberty and pursuit of his own happiness was endorsed, but they had no philosophical explanation. Appeals to religion as a foundation were left vague, and they did not pursue in any detail the pursuit of irrationalism, human sacrifice and other-worldliness, but the contradiction was still there and took its toll in the ensuing years.

Let's say that your dad tells you that he has set aside a large inheritance for you that he describes as "beyond your wildest dreams". Then he lays down the rules for how you will attain that inheritance. Would you say that such a pursuit is to live for him or for you?

We've had this conversation before in the Gulch...but, they are exclusively opposite by definition. Some will disagree (and that's their prerogative) based on anti-concepts that narrowly conflate reason and faith in a highly personal, subjective manner.

Indeed! I would much rather face a "highway robber" than live in a country governed by religious dogma. The one just tries to take my valuables. The other tries to teach me that giving up my valuables is good.

Right on, ewv.

Thank you, Mr. Brenner.

I will keep that in mind :)

... and exploit it to the hilt.

I agree. Next time you'll be here, ping me privately and I'll buy you a beer.