Objectivism

Lord Grimskull · 06-08-2004, 09:00 PM

An easily understandable overview for those who don't know what it is.

So, what do you think? Obviously, the Christians are not going to agree with it because of it's dismissal of God (almost out of hand). I personally feel that the reasons given for this don't make sense. Atheism doesn't explain Creation any better or worse than religion.

06-09-2004, 01:58 AM

A lot of that stuff doesn't make sense, but I'm just going to point out one thing:

Quote:

The "supernatural" is undefinable, which is also a contradiction of identity.

A "line" is undefinable; does that mean there are no lines?

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

imported_AJ Middleton · 06-09-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Grimskull:
Atheism doesn't explain Creation any better or worse than religion.

*holds back*

Atheism doesn't explain ANYTHING. It's NOT a religion.

Lord Grimskull · 06-11-2004, 12:01 AM

When did I say it was? The Objectivists present atheism--equated with science--as a better 'definer' of the world, especially of Creation, than 'spiritualist' religion.

06-11-2004, 09:11 AM

Bolt was just trying to explain that religion attempts to explain the unknown, whereas atheism accepts that it is not yet known. It is the lack of belief, or the belief in a lacking.

imported_AJ Middleton · 06-11-2004, 09:18 AM

Actually, it's the belief of a lack of gods.

That site is waaaaaay too extreme for me.

06-11-2004, 10:02 PM

No, atheism is the lack of belief. Strong (or positive) atheism is the belief in the lack of gods.

I don't like Objectivism. It has a few positive aspects, but for the most part I don't like it. I find problems with it all over the place. I don't like their rejection of skepticism or their glorifcation of laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism, among many many other things.

A Wikipedia article on the subject is available here.

[ June 11, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: UserGoogol ]

imported_AJ Middleton · 06-11-2004, 10:15 PM

"Theism" is the belief in a god. The "a" negates it. Therefore, "atheism" is the lack of a belief in a god. 'Nuff said.

Not believing in anything is not only sad, but it's a more fitting (although still incorrect) definition for agnosticism.

Princess Zelda of Hyrule · 06-11-2004, 10:17 PM

Bolt is right. Look at the roots of the word. "A", meaning the opposite of, negative, no. "Theos", meaning a divinity, a god. "A" and "theos" put together translate as "no god". Lastly, the suffix "-ism" indicates a belief or an idea. And so we have the literal definition of "atheism": The belief in no god. Or it could be the lack of belief in a god, if you look at it as "a-theism" instead of "athe-ism." But, whatever the case, it's not about belief in general. It's about divinity.

[ June 11, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

06-11-2004, 10:51 PM

A spatial "point" is undefinable too. Do points not exist?
(Just moving a little back towards the topic.)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

06-11-2004, 11:03 PM

Proof-by-etymology is not a valid proof. Words evolve. Atheism, at one time, meant the belief that there is no God. (Or an even vaguer sense of "godlessness" tantamount to "pagan.") But now it doesn't.

06-12-2004, 07:12 AM

Actually, I don't think words from greek (or latin) origin evolve that much. I believe atheism still means 'to not believe in (a) god(s).

imported_AJ Middleton · 06-12-2004, 09:59 AM

It does. UG is on crack.

Lord Grimskull · 06-12-2004, 10:09 AM

Holy farglesnot, how many times do I have to explain this?

Since an atheist doesn't believe in a god, or generally the supernatural, his explanations for the world around him and how it came to be are based on Science. Ayn Rand and the Objectivists promote this as the only rational way of explaining things. My response is that, at least as far as Creation is concerned, science--and, since Objectivists equate the two, atheism--is just as irrational as religion.

Now can we actually debate Objectivism rather than going on about etymologies?

imported_AJ Middleton · 06-12-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Grimskull:
Since an atheist doesn't believe in a god, or generally the supernatural, his explanations for the world around him and how it came to be are based on Science.

My response is that, at least as far as Creation is concerned, science--and, since Objectivists equate the two, atheism--is just as irrational as religion.

Not true again. "Holy farglesnot, how many times do I have to explain this?" The ONLY thing that binds ALL atheists is that they don't believe in gods. That's it! Nothing more! Have a nice day.

Well, Objectivists are wrong, because there is no link between science and atheism. Because the latter has no business explaining anything, that point can only be applied to science. And still they are wrong, because science at least tries to follow some logical path to answer the ultimate question.

06-08-2004, 09:00 PM	#1
Lord Grimskull Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Wherever the wild winds of fortune carry me to. Posts: 122 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 964.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,464.00 Donate	An easily understandable overview for those who don't know what it is. So, what do you think? Obviously, the Christians are not going to agree with it because of it's dismissal of God (almost out of hand). I personally feel that the reasons given for this don't make sense. Atheism doesn't explain Creation any better or worse than religion.

06-11-2004, 12:01 AM	#4
Lord Grimskull Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Wherever the wild winds of fortune carry me to. Posts: 122 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 964.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,464.00 Donate	When did I say it was? The Objectivists present atheism--equated with science--as a better 'definer' of the world, especially of Creation, than 'spiritualist' religion.

06-11-2004, 09:11 AM	#5
Psytronic Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	Bolt was just trying to explain that religion attempts to explain the unknown, whereas atheism accepts that it is not yet known. It is the lack of belief, or the belief in a lacking.

06-11-2004, 09:18 AM	#6
imported_AJ Middleton Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 482.00 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 482.00 Donate	Actually, it's the belief of a lack of gods. That site is waaaaaay too extreme for me.

06-11-2004, 10:02 PM	#7
UserGoogol Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	No, atheism is the lack of belief. Strong (or positive) atheism is the belief in the lack of gods. I don't like Objectivism. It has a few positive aspects, but for the most part I don't like it. I find problems with it all over the place. I don't like their rejection of skepticism or their glorifcation of laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism, among many many other things. A Wikipedia article on the subject is available here. [ June 11, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: UserGoogol ]

06-11-2004, 10:15 PM	#8
imported_AJ Middleton Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 482.00 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 482.00 Donate	"Theism" is the belief in a god. The "a" negates it. Therefore, "atheism" is the lack of a belief in a god. 'Nuff said. Not believing in anything is not only sad, but it's a more fitting (although still incorrect) definition for agnosticism.

06-11-2004, 10:17 PM	#9
Princess Zelda of Hyrule Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Hyrule Castle Gender: Posts: 6,128 Thanks: 35 Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts Points: 8,099.36 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,599.36 Donate	Bolt is right. Look at the roots of the word. "A", meaning the opposite of, negative, no. "Theos", meaning a divinity, a god. "A" and "theos" put together translate as "no god". Lastly, the suffix "-ism" indicates a belief or an idea. And so we have the literal definition of "atheism": The belief in no god. Or it could be the lack of belief in a god, if you look at it as "a-theism" instead of "athe-ism." But, whatever the case, it's not about belief in general. It's about divinity. [ June 11, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

06-11-2004, 10:51 PM	#10
CaptHayfever Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	A spatial "point" is undefinable too. Do points not exist? (Just moving a little back towards the topic.) And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

06-11-2004, 11:03 PM	#11
UserGoogol Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	Proof-by-etymology is not a valid proof. Words evolve. Atheism, at one time, meant the belief that there is no God. (Or an even vaguer sense of "godlessness" tantamount to "pagan.") But now it doesn't.

06-12-2004, 07:12 AM	#12
Koga Guest Posts: n/a Points: 0 Bank: 0 Total Points: 0 Donate	Actually, I don't think words from greek (or latin) origin evolve that much. I believe atheism still means 'to not believe in (a) god(s).

06-12-2004, 09:59 AM	#13
imported_AJ Middleton Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 482.00 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 482.00 Donate	It does. UG is on crack.

06-12-2004, 10:09 AM	#14
Lord Grimskull Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Wherever the wild winds of fortune carry me to. Posts: 122 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 964.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,464.00 Donate	Holy farglesnot, how many times do I have to explain this? Since an atheist doesn't believe in a god, or generally the supernatural, his explanations for the world around him and how it came to be are based on Science. Ayn Rand and the Objectivists promote this as the only rational way of explaining things. My response is that, at least as far as Creation is concerned, science--and, since Objectivists equate the two, atheism--is just as irrational as religion. Now can we actually debate Objectivism rather than going on about etymologies?