"testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof"

You deny the admissibility of the very evidence you claim I must present. The assertion is that that I must present evidence only to have you dismiss it out of hand because of prejudice. It is the impenetrable straw man and I call it for what it is: a logical fallacy.

I have not promoted religion. What I have done is questioned the entirely arbitrary and contradictory notion that somehow only one viewpoint requires substantiation. What I have done is point out the determination to ignore the claims of evidence which run contrary to a preferred position. What I have done it point out the partiality and bias of one of the viewpoints being argued. If you subscribe to such, your own conscience is your enemy.

A good article from an Objectivist perspective that discusses why the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion:
http://atlassociety.org/objectivism/a...

Stop calling people dishonest, lying, deceptive. and lazy and the rest of your psychologizing for rejecting your arbitrary faith. You make the assertions and the burden of proof is on you, not those who refuse to take your meaningless, arbitrary religious claims seriously. Your fervent "testimonials" of your revelations "beyond the mental to achieve" are not evidence of anything but your own mental state. This is an Ayn Rand forum for serious discussion related to the purpose of the forum. It is not a place for you to repetitively intrude with religious proselytizing and obnoxious insults towards those who reject you. Stop it. It does not belong here.

"Proof of a negative is not necessary or possible."

Exactly, which is why one must pursue a course of proving what may be substantiated. But to take the position that the burden of proof lies only on the one side of the argument is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

"And testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof, no matter how many or how fervently believed."

The desire not to acknowledge proof stems from protectionism of one's own position. If you would rather argue from a purely hypothetical position - one which denies its own proof - because it comforts you in inaction, so be it. A personal testimonial, however, is the purest form of proof there can be because it is individual and because it required actual work and effort beyond the mental to achieve. If you choose to disbelieve testimonials, that is your choice, but to deny that any such may be authoritative? Such a claim denies justice. It is a lie which if you want to tell yourself, you deceive only yourself. Good luck if you ever have to appear in court.

No offense intended, it is clear that you came to that conclusion, but it isn't clear how you can be certain that there is no further rational argument if you have not heard it. I think I understand Rand's rational point of view on the source of rights but I'm not convinced the legal research on sovereignty is incompatible since both contend that rights do not come from government.

The "title" is the entire content in one malformed question based on a false premise. There is nothing else there to prejudge. When religious conservatives lead with their false narrative, that is what will be discussed.

There is no discussion possible when you pre-judge based upon the title and have pre-determined that everything else must be unworthy without consideration.

Just responded to your PM. Sorry for the delay.

You are a tough customer! Love the blindingly direct logic and unswerving view. Still want to know who you are voting for!

FFA, I don't see more data here, just the title. With the awkward wording, after 15 minutes of looking at it, I am sticking with my own advice: "When in doubt, wear oatmeal."

You were right the first time. Promotion of a divine source of rights was not only emphasized as the premise of the original post, he repeatedly emphasized it in later posts, denouncing Ayn Rand with "As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short", calling us "sheeple" with "such ignorance is not limited to atheists". Several other militant religionists piled on along with him, denouncing Ayn Rand and her philosophy and personally insulting and rotely 'downvoting' rational rejection of their anti-reason, a-historical conservative 'narrative' and insults on behalf of religious conservatism. They can believe whatever they want but if they can't post with civility in the purpose of the forum, and insist on being hostile anti-Ayn Rand activists on behalf of their 'cause', then they obviously don't belong here.

The militant religionists who rotely 'downvote' rejection of their dogma and who have no rational discussion to offer do not belong on this forum. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism, not crusading anti-intellectual conservatives pushing religion and duty.

Drop the stream of personal insults. You are not contributing to the discussion. The same goes for the collaborating militant religionists who rotely 'downvote' rejection of their dogma on an Ayn Rand forum.

I would say you have a re-active mind based on your comments in this thread.

Faith is incompatible with reason and religious conservative appeals to the supernatural as the alleged basis of rights is incompatible with Objectivism. Appeals to the supernatural are not the basis of rights. This is not a matter of "listening", we have heard the same conservative fallacy over and over and reject it.

I have an active mind, not an "open mind", and am not "foolish". I am not "open" to your deliberately insulting misrepresentations.

The fact that he frequently repeats the term “Creator endowed rights” shows (to me, anyway) that he considers the “creator endowed” modifier to be an integral part of his argument and beliefs. This puts it fundamentally at odds with Objectivism, since we don’t consider rights to be contingent on an “endowment” from some supernatural being. If the premise is invalid, a valid conclusion cannot follow from it, regardless of whether that conclusion can be shown to be true or false by other means.

As for my voting for Gary Johnson, it’s a strategic decision that in no way binds me to agreement with all of his positions. It’s based on my expectations of what he would do as President, if elected. If Jetgraphics were running instead of Gary Johnson, I would likely vote for him for the same reason.

The original "title" is the entire content of what he wrote. It begins with a false religious conservative premise. The rest of it is barely coherent if that: "What more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that". There are no "Creator endowed natural rights".

Your no rights without responsibility is standard conservative slogan heard endlessly and showing only a lock of understanding of the concept rights.

There are no unchosen duties. There are no "duties" resulting from "being alive". "Duties" are moral imperatives divorcing morality from choice and from cause and effect. See Ayn Rand's "Causlity versus Duty". Conservatives trying to impose duties in the name of morality and through political force is standard fare and is no basis for defending freedom.

Your swinish nonsense "If you had half the intellectual integrity and honesty you proclaimed, your last post would have only one statement - a statement I agree with whole-heartedly" does not mean "avoiding fallacy". Rejecting your dogma is not lack of either "intellectual integrity" or "honesty". Religious conservative duty and political impositions are not the standard.

Belief in a god is not an unanswered question in Objectivism. Every form of theism is subjectivist, putting consciousness above existence. Objectivism’s fundamental axiom is that “existence exists”. Consciousness of any kind occurs within existence.

Proof of a negative is not necessary or possible. The burden of proof rests on the person making a positive assertion. And testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof, no matter how many or how fervently believed. Millions of people have “experienced” Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. That does not make them real.

Sorry. Wasn't my intent to scold, Thor. ;^)

Fine. ewv. You refuse to listen to anything. That is not what an objectivist does.

Properly scolded. Digging in more ... Thanks!

Which repeated term is so offensive that you refuse to even consider anything that is proposed, CBJ? Without intending offense, how can that possily be objectivist? How can you make an objective judgement without listening to the information presented? Because you disagree with one word or phrase ? How can you vote for Gary Johnson when you disagree with some of his policies? The answer is that you listened to all he had to say and rationally considered the alternatives.