Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so. As I said, I'm not here to debate the existence of God.

Adonis,

You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same.

What you call Allah, Objectivists call reality. And they are "slaves" to reality just as much as you are a "slave" to Allah.

There are four critical differences (and there are even more, like the issue of Satan, but these four will suffice for now).

1. Reality is not personified in Objectivism with a human-like will. (To avoid being offensive, let me clarify that I speak from the perspective of the individual, not the perspective of reality or Allah. So "human-like will" means as perceived by the individual, not as exists on the macro end. Frankly, this last is beyond my scope of observation as a human being anyway.)

2. There is no afterlife postulated in Objectivism. Many Objectivists claim as fact that there is no afterlife, but once again, this is beyond their scope of observation. From an individual rational perspective, it sure looks like there isn't one. But from other individual perspectives on record, like near-death experiences, for instance, there are enough similarities reported to keep a reasonable doubt open. The important metaphysical issue in Objectivism, though, is the reality we all can perceive. Dealing with this, in Randian terms, is far more important than claiming that something doesn't exist. She was emphatic in claiming that Objectivism was not premised on a negative. Objectivism is explicitly presented as a philosophy for living on earth, not anywhere else (space/time-wise or dimension-wise), nor is the fundamental purpose cosmology.

3. There is no process, nor need, of worshiping reality in Objectivism. Reality simply exists. However, the laws of reality need to be obeyed, upon severe punishment if they are not, but with great benefits (potential, not guaranteed) if they are.

4. There are no holy books in Objectivism that speak in the name of reality. It is true that there are some Objectivists who hold Rand up as the equivalent of a sacred prophet—certified and sanctified as reality's official agent. Fortunately, not all do.

Now, where I see a real parallels is in relation to three things (for starters): human origin, greater force and how this force is used by people.

1. To you, Allah created human beings. To Objectivists, reality created them. Parallel.

2. To you, Allah is a much greater existent and force than human beings, i.e., He gives context to them. To Objectivists, this goes for reality. Parallel.

In fact, in Objectivism, reality is presented as axiomatic, which means you have to accept it as starting and end point, as greater than you. A person cannot prove reality and cannot be outside it. As you do not debate the existence of Allah, Objectivists do not debate the existence of reality. (Sometimes they bicker about it with others, but they rarely debate it.)

3. Now this last is a really important parallel (in my opinion). You can read in Objectivist literature that the good is taking reality and molding it by your own choice and ability to ends that provide more value to human life, but you first have to identify reality correctly (also by choice). Those are not the words used, but that is the essence. And it is quite common to see the phrase, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed."

I see you doing this with Allah.

I don't believe you would ever use a phrase like "Allah to be commanded must be obeyed," because the idea of commanding Allah comes with a large negative kneejerk reaction with Muslims, but if the concept of "command" here is understood more in the sense of "doing the work of Allah," or something like that, hopefully you will see what I am getting at. Another way of putting it would be "One must obey Allah in order to do His work," or something along those lines. And both are done by the choice of the individual. That is how I understand submission in Islam. The end in following this line of reasoning, as I see it, is the same as in Objectivism: to provide more value to human life.

Of course, I speak to the way you have presented Islam, not to the way extremist fundamentalists have. To them, judging from their acts, submission means making others submit to them much more than making themselves submit to Allah. (Well, they do submit to their own hatred.)

Anyway, those are my thoughts, for what they are worth. This manner of thinking is one of the reasons I am not aggressively questioning you about this or that in your beliefs. You are entitled to them as I am to my manner of thinking.

Where we disagree does not threaten me, even as we disagree. On the contrary, I see disagremnent as a right we both have.

What's more, and this is far more important to me, I think we have much common ground on which to grow a garden...

Michael

[Selene]

Good post Michael:

"1. To you, Allah created human beings. To Objectivists, reality created them. Parallel."

On the surface, this appears to be a parallel, but Allah, being a conscious deity, would have intention and, one might assume, a reason, or a plan...yes.

Whereas reality, as we agree, exists. It just is.

This is where it breaks down quickly as Brant noted in his epidermis post.

Adam

[Xray]

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

You have hit the nail on the head Brant. AV's premise is based on claiming an alleged supernatural being to exist. The error in the premise lies in claiming existence of such being without being able to offer a shred of proof. What AV calls evidence does of course not qualify as such.

This exposes AV's premise as false.

If anyone claimed that the tooth fairy exists who gave us "laws" to brush our teeth, one would rightly think of this person as a mental case. But for centuries, fervent believers have tried to impose "divine laws" on their fellow men, allegedly coming from a being ("god") no less fantastic (but far less harmless)!

What also stands out in bold relief is a fundamental contradiction in AV's argumentation:

No libertarian would see himself "a slave to God". Totally impossible.

(Nor would any libertarian advocate the atrocious practice of stoning).

Clearly a violation of the law of non-contradiction. AV is definitely not a libertarian.

I just read MSK's post where he points out parallels between Islam and Objectivism. This is getting interesting. ;)

Edited January 11, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

It is more like a heavily clothed person coming into a house of nudists. He requires the nudists to cover up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

...AV's premise is based on claiming an alleged supernatural being to exist. The error in the premise lies in claiming existence of such being without being able to offer a shred of proof. What AV calls evidence does of course not qualify as such.

This exposes AV's premise as false.

Ms. Xray:

Since you can neither "prove" or "disprove" whether or not a "god" exists or not with absolute certainty, it merely calls AV's premise into dispute, as he can dispute yours.

It fascinates me to watch you employ the exact same condemnatory "sinful" terms as those you condemn, subjectively speaking of course.

Hmm, if a subjectivist screams at an objectivist in the forest, will the subjectivist be able to hear the answer?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Since you can neither "prove" or "disprove" whether or not a "god" exists or not with absolute certainty, it merely calls AV's premise into dispute, as he can dispute yours.

It's not up to us to disprove the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. As he cannot do that, we're justified in rejecting that claim and calling it false. Zeus, Thor and Jehova don't exist.

[merjet]

Michael,

Replying to post #176, I believe there is another difference between Objectivism and Adonis' view, which you touched on but did not hit directly. That is primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness. It is not merely an ontological question -- e.g. the origin of the universe -- but also a choice about a person's mental functioning, as a person's epistemological orientation. The primacy of consciousness in operational terms simplifies to primacy of one's own consciousness, which can trump the facts of reality.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_of_existence_vs_primacy_of_consciousness.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was discussing approach parallels, not metaphysical fact parallels.

And those parallels do exist.

It's easy to turn this into a "my God is bigger than your God" thing, but isn't that what religions do?

I, personally, don't need to defend reality.

I read somewhere that existence exists. I agreed.

I serenely agreed.

And I'm serene about it.

In fact, I'm so serene that if I encounter a person of good will who is convinced differently, I think that's his affair.

I would have to check, but I believe Adonis has answered questions, not preached. If folks don't like his answers, don't ask the questions. I don't think he's going to change, but I don't think he is seeking converts to Islam.

Michael

[anthony]

It's almost predictable that a religious believer, especially one who is more rational than most, or, who allows his rationality more scope, would come across Objectivism and be interested and beguiled by it.

Mystics still recognize sense.

The point is that to build a bridge to one religion (Islam, here) would require that one is consistent, and tries to pull off the same engineering feat with all of them, doesn't it? I was happy to communicate with an influential Mormon, and Rand fan, who had a genuine respect for Capitalism, on another forum - our commonality was love of freedom.

Is this Adonis' motivation? I'm not sure.

I admit to a small bias or preference,( as far as religions go ), to Judaism - mainly, because I view it as the least invasive one. My approach, to all believers, in all religions has always been to find where we have common ground, and emphasise that, before finding where we diverge. Still, I know, going in, that fundamentally, I have made my mind up and it's not going to be swayed by any argument. By now I have heard them all, or come up with a few myself.

However, Christianity, Islam and Judaism could all take something from the O'ist 'way', I believe.

I'd be keen to know if Adonis is getting anything out of this, and what it is.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

There are even other differences, but to use the one you linked, here is a portion of it:

... man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world...

Do you see this manner of mental functioning in the posts of Adonis? That he judges whether something he sees right in front of him exists or not because a little voice tells him?

I don't see it.

I see a very articulate person with a very keen analytical brain who knows how to observe and arrive at his own conclusions.

I do believe there is a standard that should be used for mental functioning, though. It involves character.

A few years ago when I showed up in Rand-land, I was perplexed by something. I thought that familiarity with Objectivism would influence a person's character for the better. What I have observed is just about the same split between good folks, confused folks, cons, assholes and bullies that you can encounter in any religion.

We even have submit-or-die jihadi Objectivists like Perigo who preach hatred and killing, fer-crise-sakes...

So I looked for a different standard for jugding character. I found a good one, too. It involves volition. I have noted that people who are more interested in their own souls than in ruling over the souls of others have better character.

In my own case, I tend to tend my own spiritual garden, so to speak. I don't agree with Objectivism because I want to embark on a crusade to save the world. I agree with Objectivism because the fundamental principles make sense to me, and that's my only fundamental reason for agreeing with it.

Sure, I like to discuss the ideas with others and hopefully spread them, but not because I seek converts or strive to trounce enemies. (I trust nobody who knows me believes I shy away from a fight, though, especially against bullies.) On the deepest level inside me, what others think is secondary. I discuss the ideas simply because they interest me.

I'm that selfish.

The world can be going to hell in a handbasket and I'm still that selfish.

I believe this attitude is the most important one I have ever chosen for my own life. So I become very interested when I see another person appear bearing the same attitude, but with a different intellectual/spiritual structure.

I feel far more kindship to such a person than I do to someone like Perigo.

And curious as all get out...

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Experiences or hallucinations. And what about second and third party confirmation? I distinguish among:

1. First hand, personal experience

2. Second hand reports from first hand parties several of which agree as to fact. This includes scientific corroberation of experimental results. That is why scientists insist on the replication and confirmation of claimed experimental results by independent parties.

3. Hearsay. The Prophet reports an experience with God (probably madness) and someone writes down what the Prophet said or worse, writes down what someone said the Prophet said. This I discount. I cannot take such things seriously particularly when they clash with first hand experience (mine) as in #1 above or corroberated testimony as in #2 above.

If you want to believe the second hand reports on the ravings of the Prophet, by all means do. We live in a semi free world, which we will continue to live in until you and your Muslim buddies take over ( God forbid!). Then we will either be dead or Dhimmi.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's funny, so you require all history to be given to you first hand? Sounds a little difficult don't you think?

Adonis,

You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same.

Michael, I'm truly glad that you are understanding where I'm coming from.

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

I am not here debating you Brant, nor am I debating anyone else. I am expressing my opinions and beliefs and clarifying what I believe you do not understand about Islam. And so, this thread is not a discussion about God's existence, if you don't believe in the existence then that is up to you.

Since you can neither "prove" or "disprove" whether or not a "god" exists or not with absolute certainty, it merely calls AV's premise into dispute, as he can dispute yours.

It's not up to us to disprove the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. As he cannot do that, we're justified in rejecting that claim and calling it false. Zeus, Thor and Jehova don't exist.

There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years. So if you'd like to bring any new ideas. You can disprove the current beliefs and if you can't do that, then you are in no better a position than I, in fact I'd dare say that your position is worse because there is eye witness testimony to the miracles that God has sent through His prophets and messengers, may he bless them all located in many Holy Books. You have nothing.

[BaalChatzaf]

There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years. So if you'd like to bring any new ideas. You can disprove the current beliefs and if you can't do that, then you are in no better a position than I, in fact I'd dare say that your position is worse because there is eye witness testimony to the miracles that God has sent through His prophets and messengers, may he bless them all located in many Holy Books. You have nothing.

Generally speaking the burden of proof for the existence of anything rests on those who claim the existence of something. If you say X exists, then

1. produce it or construct it.

2. offer objective evidence of its existence, for example a true photograph or some objective record. Scientific claims for the existence of various fields (electrical, gravitiational...) and for atoms and sub-atomic particles are of this nature)

3. Test the logical consequences of the claims of existence empirically. Again this is how atoms and molecules were shown to exist, for example.

Anything else is nonsense. Claims for the existence of souls, gods, ghosts, spirits and such like supernatural crap have no empirical basis what so ever. If it ain't empirical or it it ain't mathematical it is nonsense.

If you wish to believe in the existence of boojums and banshees, then by all means do. But do not expect sensible people to take your claims seriously. Of course when you and you Muslim buddies take over sensible people will be given the choice:

a. Convert

b. Die

c. Become a Dhimmi

Isn't that right?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

If you wish to believe in the existence of boojums and banshees, then by all means do. But do not expect sensible people to take your claims seriously. Of course when you and you Muslim buddies take over sensible people will be given the choice:

a. Convert

b. Die

c. Become a Dhimmi

Isn't that right?

Ba'al Chatzaf

How could we possibly take over? That would require the consent of the people and can't be imposed.

Also, what is your understanding of what a Dhimmi is?

[merjet]

Do you see this manner of mental functioning in the posts of Adonis? That he judges whether something he sees right in front of him exists or not because a little voice tells him?

I haven't read a lot of what he has posted, but based on what I have read, here is what I see. What he sees right in front of him is what is written in a religious text. He doesn't need "a little voice". All he needs is to imagine that some religious folks -- self-proclaimed prophets and messengers of God -- who speak (spoke) about the little voices they hear (heard) are speaking (spoke) the truth.

We even have submit-or-die jihadi Objectivists like Perigo who preach hatred and killing, fer-crise-sakes...

Are you alleging this has some connection with anything I wrote on this thread?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Just a religious text?

How about Adonis's computer, the food he eats and all kinds of things like that? Doesn't he see those things in front of him?

I see no indication whatsoever that he needs to consult a religions text to see them and use them, etc., or that he pretends a religious text alters them in some manner.

That primacy of consciousness thing should be qualified to mean the existence of Allah, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, etc. And leave it there if precision is a value.

Unless, of course, it can be demonstrated that Adonis includes the other stuff in primacy of consciousness thinking.

As to the comment about Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo, I don't understand your question. I merely used him as an example to show that familiarity with Objectivism does not automatically provide a person with good character. That, based on this spiteful bonehead as an easily observable example, it is possible to preach bigotry, hatred and murder, and people (even many Objectivists) will still call it Objectivism.

So Objectivism by itself is not a good standard for judging character.

What else could I have meant?

Whatever it is that you have in mind, it sounds bad, so I'm pretty sure I didn't mean that...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Experiences or hallucinations. And what about second and third party confirmation? I distinguish among:

1. First hand, personal experience

2. Second hand reports from first hand parties several of which agree as to fact. This includes scientific corroberation of experimental results. That is why scientists insist on the replication and confirmation of claimed experimental results by independent parties.

3. Hearsay. The Prophet reports an experience with God (probably madness) and someone writes down what the Prophet said or worse, writes down what someone said the Prophet said. This I discount. I cannot take such things seriously particularly when they clash with first hand experience (mine) as in #1 above or corroberated testimony as in #2 above.

If you want to believe the second hand reports on the ravings of the Prophet, by all means do. We live in a semi free world, which we will continue to live in until you and your Muslim buddies take over ( God forbid!). Then we will either be dead or Dhimmi.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's funny, so you require all history to be given to you first hand? Sounds a little difficult don't you think?

Adonis,

You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same.

Michael, I'm truly glad that you are understanding where I'm coming from.

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

I am not here debating you Brant, nor am I debating anyone else. I am expressing my opinions and beliefs and clarifying what I believe you do not understand about Islam. And so, this thread is not a discussion about God's existence, if you don't believe in the existence then that is up to you.

Since you can neither "prove" or "disprove" whether or not a "god" exists or not with absolute certainty, it merely calls AV's premise into dispute, as he can dispute yours.

It's not up to us to disprove the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there is a god. As he cannot do that, we're justified in rejecting that claim and calling it false. Zeus, Thor and Jehova don't exist.

There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years. So if you'd like to bring any new ideas. You can disprove the current beliefs and if you can't do that, then you are in no better a position than I, in fact I'd dare say that your position is worse because there is eye witness testimony to the miracles that God has sent through His prophets and messengers, may he bless them all located in many Holy Books. You have nothing.

Complete inversion. You cannot out argue an irrationalist. Like I said. Instead of logic he uses a sophistical logic. Adonis: "You have nothing" has logic. Your premise is God is something somewhere. Qua science, btw, eye witness testimony is worthless. Like the scientist said, many years ago, if he were to see something with his own eyes would he then believe it? "Certainly not!" he replied. "First I would test it with many instruments!"

--Brant

[merjet]

Merlin,

Just a religious text?

How about Adonis's computer, the food he eats and all kinds of things like that? Doesn't he see those things in front of him?

I haven't read all this thread, but I don't recall the topic having been Adonis's computer, the food he eats and all kinds of things like that. It has been his religious beliefs, along with a little bit about moral issues such as slavery.

Regarding primacy of consciousness, a person who subscribes to it doesn't need to use it all the time. Compartmentalizing is somewhat common, e.g. the scientist who uses the primacy of existence at work but the primacy of consciousness regarding religious matters.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Merlin,

Come on.

Do you really need to read an entire thread with almost 200 posts in it to understand a term I wrote: "something he sees right in front of him"?

I meant "something he sees right in front of him." The last time I verified, I found out that you see with eyes. And there is stuff in front of you that you see with them.

That, to me, is what "something he sees right in front of him" means.

I don't see what is so difficult about that.

Anyway, you say "compartmentalizing" is a good thing for judging primacy of consciousness and I say judging primacy of consciousness should be applied to specific areas. That sounds like we are talking about the same thing.

I do not see character in your idea of "compartmentalizing," which is good. I agree. And I would like to reiterate that adhering to Objectivism alone is not a guarantee of having a good character.

There is personal choice involved. You have to want to have a good character. (I mean "you" general person here, not "you" Merlin.) In addition to this want, I believe that the main choice is to establish looking after your own soul, not the souls of others, for first place in your priorities. That gives you good character. Or a great start at worst.

I have yet to encounter a control freak with what I would call a good character. Even the best among the ones I have known practice blatant dishonesty when their control is threatened.

Just look what goes on with some of the people I keep bashing on that site Solo Passion for a real clear example. I see it in post after post (I speak of Perigo and his minions, not all posters on SLOP). When facts don't fit their control urges, they blank out massive parts of reality or lie about them with intentional oversimplifications, distortions and bigotry.

To tie into the start of this post, they often refuse to see something that is right in front of them.

Is that good character? I say it is not.

You want primacy of consciousness de facto, although it is not called that, well there it is. To these idiots, their whims--I also call it their prejudices--trump reality. And they bash anyone who says otherwise. (Imagine people like that with real power in their hands...)

Yet they are all familiar with the works of Ayn Rand and go about preaching that the world needs to be saved and they are the ones who can do it.

To take the silliness of saving the world in the name of Objectivism (which I think is poison to thinking for oneself--for how can anyone save another when he does not seek to see correctly and he is not concerned with his own soul in first place?), wouldn't it be something if good character were only possible after Ayn Rand wrote her works? That before her, the best humans only had mixed character at best?

I can't even write that without laughing.

There are oodles of religious people who have good character, and there have been throughout humanity. There are oodles of Objectivists with good character, too.

Just like there are oodles of bad folks in both.

Objectivism is a body of ideas, not a form of mind control, although in the hands of an evil manipulator, it can be used as a tool for such as he clamors, "Follow me!" People brainwash people. Ideas don't. They are only one set of tools among many.

And in the hands of a person of good will, he can inspire folks and use the ideas and stories in Objectivism to encourage them to choose good character and think for themselves. But he cannot choose for them. He can only point the way.

Note that it's far easier to brainwash than it is to encourage independent thinking and good character.

Ditto on all this for Islam.

That's how these things work in practice. Maybe not in theory, but in practice, that's how it is. That's how it always has been in all major religious and philosophical systems throughout history.

And that is my internal context when I discuss these ideas.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see a phrase of mine is being distorted "over there" by people of ill will. So I will comment on it should anyone be confused about my meaning.

You might be surprised, but this is very close to the Objectivist view. There are a few differences, but the attitude of wanting to do good, the wish to fit in correctly with a bigger picture, and not questioning the metaphysical are the same.

As I mentioned in a post above, and I mentioned in this quote here, I was discussing an attitude towards fundamental issues, not the actual philosophical conclusions. (That's the kind of stuff you do when you try to find common ground.)

But here are my comments with the philosophical conclusions added for newbies and the conceptually challenged.

1. I believe sincere Objectivists want to do good instead of evil.

2. The "bigger picture" I mention is reality. I believe sincere Objectivists wish to identify and position themselves within reality in a correct manner. This is my meaning of "fit in correctly with a bigger picture." I meant the opposite of denying reality or imagining one can exist outside of reality. I especially meant the opposite of taking one's awareness for granted as the person denies reality. In other words, there is no awareness without someone who is aware and something to be aware of. And sincere Objectivist try to fit their thinking, and their view of their very existence, to that context (which is the "bigger picture" or reality).

3. "Not questioning the metaphysical" means that sincere Objectivists do not wonder whether nonexistence exists. They accept the fundamental axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness (i.e., fundamental aspects of reality) as "the given."

(I added "sincere" to "Objectivists" here since there are obviously manipulative people of ill will who call themselves Objectivists, such as the ones claiming my words mean their unexamined preconceptions.)

My views above are 100% in line with Rand's and anyone remotely familiar with Objectivism who thinks in a conceptual manner can see that. It's really a no-brainer.

But boneheads and people of ill will who only use jargon-speak have difficulty when you step outside the jargon. They think with prejudice as a primary, not with concepts, and that is a huge mental handicap in relation to their capacity to identify correctly.

If anyone has a question about this, ask away...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

How could we possibly take over? That would require the consent of the people and can't be imposed.

Also, what is your understanding of what a Dhimmi is?

To the first, all that is required is a majority of Muslims or willing slaves thereto. What about the few that wish to be free. Under Sharia they are screwed.

As to the second see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi.

It is second class subject hood and a protection racket. Just right for the thug mentality typical to which Islam tends.

Your comment and question indicates just how disingenuous you are. Sneaky, sneaky. Shame on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant

...AV's premise is based on claiming an alleged supernatural being to exist. The error in the premise lies in claiming existence of such being without being able to offer a shred of proof. What AV calls evidence does of course not qualify as such.

This exposes AV's premise as false.

Ms. Xray:

Since you can neither "prove" or "disprove" whether or not a "god" exists or not with absolute certainty, it merely calls AV's premise into dispute, as he can dispute yours.

Wrong Selene. You have failed to correctly identify the false premise revealing the fundamental thinking error in AV's argumentation.

For the discussion is not about whether a god exists or not: It is about Adonis claiming the existence of a god, who gave humans divine "laws". That is, he claims an alleged superior being as the maker of laws (via inspiriation of a guru). Laws which direct people's lives. The catholic church is not one iota different from Islam here. It has practised the same for centuries.

But since no shred of evidence of a god exists, any claim of a "gods will" is null and void. Case closed. See also Dragonfly's # 181 post.

Adnis Vlahos: There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years.

The issue is your fundamental thinking error, and it is one of maganamimous proportions: presenting an alleged god's will as objective reality. Do you at least recognize the irrationality in your proceeding that way?

So if you want to discuss issues like "burden of proof" here, you had had better get your your epistemological and evidentiary ducks in a row instead of confusing unsubstatiated subjective belief (with claims inferred from the belief) with objective reality.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Wrong Selene. You have failed to correctly identify the false premise revealing the fundamental thinking error in AV's argumentation.

For the discussion is not about whether a god exists or not: It is about Adonis claiming the existence of a god, who gave humans divine "laws". That is, he claims an alleged superior being as the maker of laws (via inspiriation of a guru). Laws which direct people's lives. The catholic church is not one iota different from Islam here. It has practised the same for centuries.

But since no shred of evidence of a god exists, any claim of a "gods will" is null and void. Case closed. See also Dragonfly's # 181 post.

Adnis Vlahos: There is no burden of proof on me whatsoever Dragonfly, in fact the burden of proof in such a debate as to the existence of God (which I'd like to reiterate that this is not and nor am I interested in involving myself in such fruitless discussion) is ultimately on people who claim that there is no god because people have believed that the universe was created by a being that has the power to do so for thousands of years.

The issue is your fundamental thinking error, and it is one of maganamimous proportions: presenting an alleged god's will as objective reality. Do you at least recognize the irrationality in your proceeding that way?

So if you want to discuss issues like "burden of proof" here, you had had better get your your epistemological and evidentiary ducks in a row instead of confusing unsubstatiated subjective belief (with claims inferred from the belief) with objective reality.

Ms. Xray:

I was going to respond to DF's post, however, I thought that I would wait for you to come sniffing up his argument by piling on.

There is a standard in argumentation and debate. The affirmative must challenge the status quo, or that which is.

Status quo is defined as the existing condition or state of affairs. The present system or existing order; or "the situation as it currently exists." Wiki: "...a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" - literally "the state in which" - is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.^[1] To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are. The related phrase status quo ante, literally "the state in which before", means "the state of affairs that existed previously"^[2].

As Ron Reagan quipped ..."Status quo, you know, that is Latin for the mess we're in."

Therefore, if you view it as what every American citizen possesses by his citizenship, a presumption of innocence is the status quo. The negative or the defense does not have to do anything until the "burden of proof" or a prima facie case has been presented.

Depending on the forum, the burden to prove is higher. For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in one case and lost another, a civil case. In a civil matter, the burden is 50.000001 per cent. In a criminal case, it can be as high as 95%. In certain matters in between the burden is in the 75% range.

Therefore, and I know this will be depressing to both you and DG, but the current "status quo" is absolutely, beyond any doubt that a "god" or "gods" exist.

Finally, and in summation, 'Ol Vlad the impaler there has the status quo and the presumption on his side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y067aPHYHoo

Just goes to show, even a marxist can sing brilliantly.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

I now refer you to the blatant hypocrisy that is Lindsay Perigo. http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-83196

Hmm I see.. Thank you Lindsay, I'll do just that.

"Adonis," if you're sincere in your desire to learn about the philosophy, go to the primary source, not to a brain-damaged, spiritual deformity from the gutter.

So by this I understand that I shouldn't assess and judge Objectivism based on my experiences with people who claim to be adherents of that ideology and claim to know about it? I shouldn't judge it based on their actions and words?

So I asked you, what sources should I look at?

To which you replied:

"to answer questions. But bear in mind the disclaimer at the bottom of every page here. My introductory article, "Objectivism" further down this page might be useful for you. First and foremost, though, you should acquire the standard classics: Philosophy Who Needs It?, For the New Intellectual, The Virtue of Selfishness, Peikoff's Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"...

And so I asked you:

"So these books are what you suggest? How long, in your experience does it take someone to learn about Objectivism to be at the level where they can adequately discuss it? Is there any courses on it that I can do?

I only ask because I'm now concerned that the things that I've been led to believe about objectivism might not be correct and would like to make sure. How about people you could refer me to, who I can ask questions of? Any suggestions?"

And to which you replied:

"How long does it take? The economics and politics are easy. It's when you grasp the epistemology, the nature of objectivity vs. intrinsicism (*your* sin, Adonis) on one side and subjectivism on the other, and genuinely get it so you can spot a phony dichotomy that everyone else thinks is real a mile off, that I believe you can say you've really got it. That can take years. Seasoned Objectivists can still be seen falling into the intrinsicist trap in particular. There are those who claim the entire ARI is mired in intrinsicism, but I couldn't possibly comment ;)

So ultimately, you say:

1. I shouldn't judge Objectivism by people who are claiming to be adherents of it and claiming to be representing Objectivist values and ideas, even if they sound quite educated regarding what they speak about.

2. I should study all of the different subjects about it to understand it properly, from the sources themselves.

3. It could take years of study to be able to understand it properly to the extent of being educated well enough on the ideas to promote them.

Isn't it odd? You tell me that I should take these steps to properly understand Objectivism, yet you haven't nor are you willing to take the same steps in understanding Islam and instead:

1. You judge Islam based on the example of people who claim to be representing it, even when others tell you that they are doing unislamic practices that people claim to be Islamic. Your examples of Islam are the worst of the Muslims.

2. You Don't want to study from the sources like the Qur'an, the interpretations by scholars, the Hadiths, the differences of opinion to gain an understanding of what Islam really is.

3. You do so and claim to know what Islam is, but as above, you have no real knowledge, you don't study the sources properly and instead you take verses or snippets of verses from the Qur'an and represent the meaning and judge it based on your lack of understanding of it. And so, your ideas are wrong, yet you claim to be able to speak about Islam but you speak from ignorance..

The differences between you and myself Lindsay are very clear. I'm willing not to judge something without fully understanding it and seeking the knowledge directly from the sources. I won't swear about it and condemn it, acting like a savage. Rather I'll ask questions when I don't understand and if I don't like something, I'll look for the good in it and see how it applies to the real world.

You however bathe in ignorance and hate, like a Wahhabi you judge and judge when you have no knowledge of what you are judging. You use hateful speech and rhetoric as a means to try and prove yourself as being right when ultimately, you don't speak in depth about anything.

Lindsay, your and many others' hypocrisy, in your conduct and expectations of others is now so blatantly clear and apparent that there is nowhere else to go with it. You expect of others what you wouldn't do yourself and that shows your character very well

Yes, I will study more about objectivism, I'll read the books and ask the questions. But I won't behave like you or others because clearly, from your own conduct you have proven to me that you're well below the level of people that I should be discussing this with.

It's no use speaking with the immature and inhumane when I could be speaking to those who have wisdom, logic and good gentlemanly conduct.

[Xray]

I was going to respond to DF's post, however, I thought that I would wait for you to come sniffing up his argument by piling on.

In case it escaped you, I had already addressed the issue in a prior post post, telling AV that my study of several criminal cases has given me a fairly good idea of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. Whch is why I'm also familiar with who has the burden of proof in criminal cases: the prosecution.

There is a standard in argumentation and debate. The affirmative must challenge the status quo, or that which is.

What does this have to do with my exposing AV's thinking error?

Therefore, if you view it as what every American citizen possesses by his citizenship, a presumption of innocence is the status quo. The negative or the defense does not have to do anything until the "burden of proof" or a prima facie case has been presented.

Your point being? I'm familiar with this.

For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in one case and lost another, a civil case.

Simpson's acquittal is one of most egregious miscarriages of justice un US criminal history, due to the abysmal performance of the prosecution who spinelessly failed to make their case despite possessing conclusive evidence linking Simpson to the murders. But I don't want to get sidetracked here.

Therefore, and I know this will be depressing to both you and DG, but the current "status quo" is absolutely, beyond any doubt that a "god" or "gods" exist.

Priceless! That must have been quite funny "argumentation courses" you have taught in college, Mr. Selene.

That many believe in the existence of a superior being is no evidence supporting the existence of such being. Countless children also believe in Santa Claus.

I have pointed out a thinking error in AV's argumentation exposing his premise as false: inferring "laws" from a belief in a transcendent being without having the slighest evidence of supporting the belief.

Your mixing the "presumption of innocence" issue in here is irrelevant for this discussion.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

I now refer you to the blatant hypocrisy that is Lindsay Perigo.

Wow, great takedown AV!

I hope you do read some Rand, I suggest getting The Virtue of Selfishness first, or maybe just dive into Atlas Shrugged straight away.