+1. Thank you for posting that.

Virtue of selfishness. Recommended to you before

Snort. Diplomat vs the agitator

Hello DB,
I completely understand. Faith is not science.
I respect your wish to engage, your stamina and your adherence to your convictions.. I hope you are not discouraged by the progress you make.
Perhaps you will even convert a few.
Regards,
O.A.

OA.,

Jefferson is half right. He is completely right in the sphere of politics and in no case should that ever be forgotten. But when reason is abandoned in science we end up with AGW and the AGW advocates will argue that you are doing more than breaking their legs and picking their pockets, you are destroying the world.

True freedom cannot be maintained by any ethical or epistemology system and certainly not by the christian version of these. You cannot build a house or rocket or an MRI or the greatest country in history on a foundation of quicksand. So these issues are important. But I will no more listen to CG spread lies and ignore reality than I will listen to the regionists. I will point out that I disagree vehemently with them and that they are not allowed to spread their lies on this site.

I don't excuse the religious sermonizing, but some of the religious discussion raises a question of the nature of values/morals that is interesting to me.

Religious person: I believe in a god, but it only informs applies to spiritual and values issues. This spiritual view directs me toward using reason to understand the world and accept Objectivism.
Atheist: By believing in gods, you're doing something irrational, contrary to Objectivism.
Religious person: My religion is based on faith. It can't be irrational or rational. Those apply only to the real world, which I approach rationally. Religion concerns itself with values and spirit.
Atheist: The very notion of "spirit" is irrational. Values should not rest stuff someone made up.

If the religious person says religion has no effect whatsoever on anything in the real world, then I don't see a problem with it or any reason even to discuss it at all. As rockymountainpirate says, just move on.

If they're saying religion is the foundation of their value system, values that affect how they interact with the real world, there's a reason to talk about it. Some people more knowledgeable about philosophy than I am have said values rest on reason, or something like that. I'm philosophically unsophisticated, so it feels to me like my values came from my parents and culture. That's an arbitrary source, so I can see a person from a religious background saying religion informs their values.

Is there a non-fiction book by Rand or anyone that addresses the question of the source of our values?

I agree. +1.

Lolol. Agreed. Perfect, Nice and tidy facts they can't stand and you're just being rude if you bring it up. I don't think they've ever addressed that, their thinking blinders won't let them go there.

Yes and that's when I get my flag out. These are inaccurate and presumed judgements , and also name calling to undermine and dismiss our thought process, and untrue too. The thumpers are militant and have that holier than thou thing going on.

Hello freedomforall,
Me too.
Regards,
O.A.

Hello khalling,
I understand and do not blame you for the ruckus. You need no one's sanction to post what you wish. Some just take things too personally... the frequency of these discussions devolving into food fights just seems to be increasing. You as the producer of the thread should do as you see fit. When things get too heated I just move along... recognizing a sense of futility.
Best wishes,
O.A.

I take credit for at least one of the posts. The purpose was to set the record on false claims regarding Rand. The second was to debunct the notion that only the religious can understand and attain happiness. This is a cultural myth used to discredit objectivist thinking. I think if I do such a post again I will use Euda 's system to keep it from being a faith vs reason debate.

Hello RMP,
I maintain, as did Jefferson "... 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." However, regardless of my personal beliefs, this is a site dedicated to objectivism and thumping the Bible on the heads of those that do not believe when the only evidence of one's belief is faith without empirical evidence is bound to ruffle feathers. It is probably best for the sake of comity if we avoid the subject unless God performs a demonstrable miracle that can be recorded and demonstrated empirically. If it were substantial and demonstrable, that would force Objectivsts to re-examine their positions as it may no longer be in the realm of arbitrary. On the other hand I do not see how objectivists are harmed by believers that practice objectivist principles in this temporal existence so long as they recognize they will also not persuade objectivists without empirical evidence and should let it be. It has been abundantly clear that the true believers are not persuaded by the argument that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss their faith, though to objectivists faith is arbitrary and thus not fact. People will decide one way or the other in their own time.
I know that years of investigating the best arguments and arguing this issue have, for me, produced no irrefutable evidence. I remain open to evidence, but until confronted with something that could not be explained as a result of the law of causality, I have no opinion I can substantiate to others. It is arbitrary; Therefore not objectivist.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Only force succeeded in stopping Hare Krishna from proselytizing and begging for money in airports. Stopping the born again will be just as difficult. I just leave the field and go to other more rational discussion.

"militant" and "radical" atheists. these terms are also used to describe objectivists

Agreed. +1. That's why the endless debates in the Gulch are getting so tiresome.

Let's look at the differences.

Metaphysics A=A or A is what god says it is right now

Epistemology Reason (logic and evidence) vs. revealed truth

Ethics Rational self interest vs Altruism.

But try to pin them down on these realities and they shift like the sand. Not to mention their inane attempts to show the United States was found on christianity. It was not. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights. Christians can take credit for the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, thousands of religious wars, poverty and ignorance.. However, since it was not revealed to be so in their stupid book, no amount of evidence will convince them of this.