Satan sounds like the good guy.

[anthony]

I've also viewed the Christianity - Objectivist 'thing' as slightly over-lapping circles.

Greg's and my "circles" shift some, but he has a good idea what I'm about, and I think I know what he's about, so there is room for agreement at many significant levels.

The God belief is a given. I don't bother arguing it or questioning it any more, of any Christian (Jew, etc.)

The "evil of God" should be carefully unraveled (well, by Objectivists) I think. To me the "evil" lies not in the fact that those other people who are believers, believe. We know that. Why, though, should O'ists actively oppose religious folk at every opportunity? Should one stand outside churches and demonstrate his disgust with Faith?

Is the show not a bit second-hand, holier than thou - that would not change a thing anyway?

(Of course, one should stand forthrightly and honestly for rational principles, when asked or not.)

No, "evil" within the context of a rationally selfish morality, is the wrong that one does to oneself, his own consciousness.

Not what there might, or might not be, in others' minds.

IOW, when an individual betrays his independent mind by escaping into faith and unreason, he has perpetrated an ultimate harm on himself. Again, others' minds are unknowable and anyway not his primary concern.

God, per se, is not "evil". How can he be? He doesn't exist to an atheist like me..

The 'concept of God' exists - variously in many individual minds, however.

Like Greg says, I think it's all-critical to ask: What will you, the individual believer, DO with your faith in God? If it touches on or impacts upon outsiders it certainly will approach being "evil".

Religions have survived,(not going into the immoral ways of how they have, and some still do, right now); also many millions of religionists have thrived, living private and self-interested lives - therefore, there is evidently an amount of rationality mixed into their unreason.

Or does anyone think Objectivists have a monopoly on rationality?

Whatever happens, all of us will always live among many religious people: to live in active and explicit condemnation of most everyone around, is not my idea of rational selfishness.

[moralist]

Peter writes:

I must most vehemently disagree.

Anger is always the mark of a weak view.

Our actions stem from our beliefs. And one cannot consistently act virtuously, morally, without the right beliefs.

A see that differently. In my view there is no such thing as a wrong belief when right actions arise from it. It doesn't matter why someone does what's morally right as long as they do it, because it is solely our actions which determine the quality of the world around us. Beliefs are only virtual intellectual internal narratives.

What is more important to you? Where people believe values come from? Or which values they uphold by their actions?

Please think about that, Peter.

I'm off to the world of American Capitalism and we can continue this interesting conversation later.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm actually shocked there is anyone here who believes in god let alone considers his existence even remotely possible.

Interesting.

Peter,

There are over 7 billion people in the world. Why would that be shocking? This happens all the time outside of Internet forums.

For example, John Aglialoro produced the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy. His son wrote a book: The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground.

I bought that book, but I have not read it yet. I skimmed it and it looks quite interesing.

btw - I am not a Christian, but I do love many of them. One day a light bulb went off in my head (I used to be a kind of Randroid) and I began to realize that faith does not equal evil. Too many religious people are simply good productive peace-loving people. It took my eyes to see that, not my deductions from reading Rand. And it was a long painful process to get there, too.

In my current thinking, bullying equals evil. I found bullying among the faithful and among atheists, even among Objectivists. All of it is evil regardless of who does it.

Using that standard, I have no objection if a person wishes to believe in a manner I do not. Just so long as he or she does not bully others.

There are a few other evils, too, but I am of the Jeffersonian: "... it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Michael

[anthony]

Peter writes:

I must most vehemently disagree.

Anger is always the mark of a weak view.

Our actions stem from our beliefs. And one cannot consistently act virtuously, morally, without the right beliefs.

A see that differently. In my view there is no such thing as a wrong belief when right actions arise from it. It doesn't matter why someone does what's morally right as long as they do it, because it is solely our actions which determine the quality of the world around us. Beliefs are only virtual intellectual internal narratives.

What is more important to you? Where people believe values come from? Or which values they uphold by their actions?

Greg

Greg, Now it's here that we don't overlap and will not agree.

It is deleterious to the self-directing, volitional nature of man's consciousness to hold a conviction and to do something - to say nothing of live a life - contrary to it. Firstly, enough 'wrong' (self-contradictory) actions will have destructive consequences on one's convictions; equally, convictions are the driving force behind one's actions, and it is the supreme test and self-affirmation of a principle to apply it continually to reality.

Upset that two-way continuum by separating rational principle from action, or the action from the conviction, and it's like pouring sand into your engine.

If it might 'work' once or twice, (pragmatism) only sets one up for a bigger seizure down the line.

[moralist]

Kyrel writes:

...and everybody knows it.

That single comment alone is worth a response...

It's impossible for it to be everyone when at least one person doesn't agree... and that one person is me.

"Everyone knows" is collectivist groupthink. There is no individual freedom in the statement that you believe what you think everyone else believes.

The validity of a view is not dependent upon how many people hold it. Objective reality is the only final determiner of the validity of a view, by the just and deserved consequences which are set into motion by acting upon it. All we can have is subjective opinions about views. So I can freely state that my opinion is just as subjective as yours is.

Objective reality is what lets each of us know in no uncertain terms whether or not the view which guides our actions is valid or not. So you need only to observe your own life, and what you are today to know how good your own view is. That's precisely how I know how good my view is, by the calm sober self-reflection of my own life and what I am as a human being right now in this present moment.

Greg

[Selene]

There are a few other evils, too, but I am of the Jeffersonian: "... it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Michael

Nice...that is a great statement and one I had never heard.

Thanks Michael - I will employ it well.

[moralist]

Peter writes:Indeed, to act for bad reasons in the 'right way' would be immoral in itself.

But the effect on the world of doing what's morally right for what you subjectively believe is a "wrong" reason, is nevertheless exactly the same.

To believe in God is to engage in an act of faith.

That's true... but I don't believe. I know.Greg

[moralist]

Peter writes:

I'm actually shocked there is anyone here who believes in god let alone considers his existence even remotely possible.

I don't believe in God. I know God exists... but not directly. I know by observing how the consequences of my own actions conform to the logical order of moral law that God created.

Interesting

It does make things interesting.

No one wants to live within a mirrored echo chamber except the narcissist.

Greg

[moralist]

Michael writes:

There are a few other evils, too, but I am of the Jeffersonian: "... it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

The practical wisdom of that declaration by Jefferson qualifies him as a behaviorist.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

To state the obvious: the philosophies of Christianity and Objectivism are massively antithetical and constitute overwhelming enemies. Moreover, belief in "god" is 100% false and 100% evil -- and everybody knows it.

The existence of an intelligent entity who knows far more than any human is a not a logical impossibility. However that does not imply the existence of a such a being.

Maybe a Real God exists but I do not know that one way or the other. If such a Real God exists I would bet serious money that It is nothing like the Gods preached or envisioned by the preachers, priests, imams or gurus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Nerian]

To state the obvious: the philosophies of Christianity and Objectivism are massively antithetical and constitute overwhelming enemies. Moreover, belief in "god" is 100% false and 100% evil -- and everybody knows it.

The existence of an intelligent entity who knows far more than any human is a not a logical impossibility. However that does not imply the existence of a such a being.

Maybe a Real God exists but I do not know that one way or the other. If such a Real God exists I would bet serious money that It is nothing like the God's preached or envisioned by the preachers, priests, imams or gurus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We're not talking about a supreme entity, we're talking about an invisible person immaterial, consciousness without form, non-entity, supernatural, outside of the laws of nature, beyond and before the universe, beyond existence, all knowing, all powerful, all loving, who gave birth to himself 2000 years ago, and had a bunch of middle eastern peasants write about him over hundreds of years and compile a book, all the while threatening eternal torture to those who disobey his psychotic orders. There is no use in twisting the word 'god' out of context and defending it; that is not what the believers in god believe in. The existence of god as the meaning of the word god is used by those who believe in it is a logical impossibility. The logical contradictions would make your head explode.

Now, a man who could admit that he knows god exists and that he knows it through faith, makes no attempt to hide it, accepts that he has no evidence and could have no evidence, knows he has no reason and so he agrees needs faith, and who simultaneously upholds the validity and supremacy of reason and logic, who upholds, defends and argues for the supremacy of objective reality, who knows and understands the true nature of evil, of life, of reason, of man, and who then claims knowledge through faith of an incalculably irrational, illogical, mystical, self-contradictory, out-of-time-and-space, supernatural, creator of the universe, immaterial consciousness would constitute one of the most monstrous men that there could be. For such a man has looked into the naked face of immorality, recognized and comprehended its nature, seen that it is immoral, and decided consciously to accept it wholeheartedly. How could you feel anything other than contempt for such a man?

There are over 7 billion people in the world. Why would that be shocking? This happens all the time outside of Internet forums.

Because we are on a forum about Objectivism. We are not on any forum. For me, it'd be like being on a forum about Christianity and finding people who read the bible, preach the word of Jesus, uphold the teachings in the bible and live by them, discuss the ideas in the bible, claim to be good Christians and then one of them casually mentions that he is also a Satanist and holds core beliefs that are in direct contradiction to Christianity. Then you wouldn't say, "hey there are plenty of satanists, why is that strange?".

[anthony]

Bravo! Expounded well and fervently, I thought.

What are you going to do with the argument you've formulated? Will you go tell the religious, or affirm it to we atheists? People of Faith have faith, end of that circular argument.

I said before that the reality is we live among the religious: you're either going to convert them, or get comfortable living with them. First option is an evasion of reality,I think, the other is rational selfishness in operation. It would take extreme dogmatism and self-sacrifice for any one to assert he/she will never trade with, socialize with, or possibly love, anyone who's not an atheist too.

I don't know of any outstanding Objectivist Capitalists. We do know religious people have been thriving in business for generations - so I believe O'ists have some catching up to do. The theory and morality we know: there is plenty to learn from them in practicable Capitalism. If nothing else, one can gain insight from any Christians on OL how the religious can also be highly effective in dealing with reality. (And how that can be, when their premises are "illogical, mystical, self-contradictory").

[Nerian]

Bravo! Expounded well and fervently, I thought.

What are you going to do with the argument you've formulated? Will you go tell the religious, or affirm it to we atheists? People of Faith have faith, end of that circular argument.

I said before that the reality is we live among the religious: you're either going to convert them, or get comfortable living with them. First option is an evasion of reality,I think, the other is rational selfishness in operation. It would take extreme dogmatism and self-sacrifice for any one to assert he/she will never trade with, socialize with, or possibly love, anyone who's not an atheist too.

I don't know of any outstanding Objectivist Capitalists. We do know religious people have been thriving in business for generations - so I believe O'ists have some catching up to do. The theory and morality we know: there is plenty to learn from them in practicable Capitalism. If nothing else, one can gain insight from any Christians on OL how the religious can also be highly effective in dealing with reality. (And how that can be, when their premises are "illogical, mystical, self-contradictory").

Oh. Thank you.

In regards to your question, I don't really know what you mean.

Since this is an Objectivist forum, clearly I agree with Objectivist ethics. I'll assume you either agree with, agree partially with, or are at least sympathetic to Objectivist ethics. I'm also able to observe reality. I'm fully aware people with bad premises and belief in the mystical are capable of productive achievement. But I don't judge a person's entire moral standing on his ability to produce in some arena. It's just too bad for them that they will always be stifled and unable to achieve happiness. It's too bad that they have a split consciousness between the use of their mind in dealing with reality on one hand and then sacrificing that mind to feelings on the other. That must cause some very unnerving cognitive dissonance. I'm aware that some people are partially good. That's too bad for them. I'm not saying that every Christian is a completely evil monster hell bent on destruction. A lot of Christians are bad Christians which is what makes them better humans.

I will call immorality when I see it. I have no qualms with that. That is justice. Only morality in Objectivism is not about social concern it's about the rational self interest of the individual. Why are you even bringing up their ability to run a business? If only the perfectly moral could run a business the world would never have advanced this far!

I'd trade with any man who did not directly wish to harm me whether he believes in any mystical nonsense like god, spirits, vampires, Zeus, the ghost up the mountain, fairies, astrology, or the big bang theory. I don't think I said otherwise. In terms of morality, it isn't how much a man produces that counts. In Objectivist ethics, there is nothing stopping a man of modest ability from being fully moral.

It is to the individual's great detriment to assert knowledge through faith. In that act, he lands a terrible blow to the validity of his mind and senses. This contradiction will plague his mind with self doubt and despair, either consciously or subconsciously, and infect every facet of his life. It'll prevent the achievement of happiness that is the moral purpose of his life. It is what taking something on faith does to the individual that is immoral.

If a man preaches love for life, then takes a sword and disembowels himself simply because he felt like it then that is extremely immoral. I would not say, 'well look, it isn't of any concern to me since he didn't hurt me, only himself, so it's outside of the realm of moral judgement.' No, that's not the morality I hold. I am not a libertarian. When I see someone engage in faith, I see it the same way. Faith is the disembowelment of the mind.

[moralist]

Bob writes:

If such a Real God exists I would bet serious money that It is nothing like the Gods preached or envisioned by the preachers, priests, imams or gurus.

We're in total agreement there, Bob.

God is also nothing like the atheists envision either.

Greg

[moralist]

Peter writes:

We're not talking about a supreme entity, we're talking about an invisible person immaterial, consciousness without form, non-entity, supernatural, outside of the laws of nature, beyond and before the universe, beyond existence, all knowing, all powerful, all loving, who gave birth to himself 2000 years ago, and had a bunch of middle eastern peasants write about him over hundreds of years and compile a book, all the while threatening eternal torture to those who disobey his psychotic orders.

What's psychotic about not lying, cheating, stealing, and murdering? That seems perfectly rational to me. The consequences people experience from doing evil are completely self inflicted, just like a person who steps off of a cliff and falls to his own death. Moral law is just utterly impersonal objective gravity... everything else is totally up to us by how we relate to gravity.

Now, a man who could admit that he knows god exists and that he knows it through faith...

It's impossible to know God exists through faith because faith isn't knowing.

You either know...

or you don't.

It's as simple as that.

Greg

[Nerian]

You either know...

or you don't.

It's as simple as that.

Greg

What are you even doing here if this is the totality of your epistemology? Why do you offer lip service to evidence and reason? You don't care about either by your own admission. So why are you here? I'm seriously confused.

[tmj]

Peter

I agree with the content of your argument against faith and how an omniscient being is a contradiction , but you why are hating on the Big Bang ? Total physics layman here, but on metaphysic grounds , aside from all the maths of scientific explanation of such an event , as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo, how far fetched is it? Something banged (or may have). The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion (?), maybe everything spreads out , recedes , bangs , rinse and repeat , throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

[moralist]

Peter writes:

What are you even doing here if this is the totality of your epistemology?

It obviously isn't. You just assume that it is, and that's one reason why you're confused.

Why do you offer lip service to evidence and reason? You don't care about either by your own admission.

And that's another reason. I arrived at my own conclusion by the overwhelming personal evidence of how my own life has unfolded... and also by observing the lives of others.

So why are you here? I'm seriously confused.

Then you would do well to check your premises, because confusion is the self generated collision of what we assume and what is.

Here's a hint as to why I'm here.

Greg

[Nerian]

Peter

I agree with the content of your argument against faith and how an omniscient being is a contradiction , but you why are hating on the Big Bang ? Total physics layman here, but on metaphysic grounds , aside from all the maths of scientific explanation of such an event , as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo, how far fetched is it? Something banged (or may have). The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion (?), maybe everything spreads out , recedes , bangs , rinse and repeat , throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

Although I didn't set out a full refutation of god, thank you for expression of agreement with my conclusions.

Big bang, that was thrown in for fun Although, I don't believe the big bang theory to be correct. I don't actually throw it in the exact same category as mystical beliefs. It's in the middle of mysticism and plain error. It's a result of the corruption of science and various mistakes made along the way. I can't give you a full explanation from scratch. That would probably take a small book to fully flesh out everything.

"The CBR and redshift of galaxies seem to show expansion" - I did astronomy 101 at university. Any explanation that is irrational can be thrown out. Any explanation that can be vetoed on philosophical grounds can be thrown out. An expanding universe is one such explanation.

throw in maybe an extra not yet detected dimension or three?, no?

I also reject the possibility of extra dimensions. There are three spatial dimensions, and there is time.

as long as a singularity is not a creation event, creatio ex nihilo

Well, you make a good point. A singularity would have been the universe. That's true. In which case, the big bang theory would be a theory of how the universe changed to be this way, rather than a theory of how the universe itself began. A singularity, as defined as an infinitely small region of the universe is impossible. I reject the existence of actually existing infinities. So a singularity is out. Secondly, what is infinitely small about it if it is all that exists, it would be the totality of existence, and so the largest thing that exists. Maybe it should be called the great shrink, as everything became smaller in comparison to the universe. (and there's nothing to expand into.) - In terms of not being ex nihilo, they can only get the math to go back to a very short time after the big bang which is considered the birth of the universe. But you are wrong in thinking the physicists are not suggesting that the universe literally came from nothing. There are books about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

But I reject the notion of space-time expansion all together. I reject the existence of actually existing physical space and time. There is no such entity.

There are a group of physicists who are working on explaining the universe under rational grounds. They are not affiliated with Objectivism, but they are on the same track and have realized the same things. That there is something very wrong with modern physics, and some of it has to do with irrational philosophy.

One explanation I have seen for red shift is that it is a function of a star's age. The older the star, the more red shifted it will be. Now there's a rational hypothesis.

Also there is astronomical evidence that shows various objects joined together with highly different red shifts.

Also, even the mathematics of the big bang theory can be shown to be meaningless by those who unlike me actually have a very strong grasp of it. They can break it down, show you it's not scary, and explain what it all is supposed to mean.

I should probably start a blog about it so I can just refer people there whenever I'm asked. I reject the big bang, space-time, quantum theory (but not quantum mechanics), and black holes

[moralist]

Tony writes:

Greg, Now it's here that we don't overlap and will not agree.

That's what makes things interesting.

It is deleterious to the self-directing, volitional nature of man's consciousness to hold a conviction and to do something - to say nothing of live a life - contrary to it.

People know right from wrong and choose to do wrong all the time... and are hell bent on destroying themselves left and right. Why is that? This isn't an argumentative question as we'll both likely come up with similar answers. I just wanted to know your thoughts on it.

Firstly, enough 'wrong' (self-contradictory) actions will have destructive consequences on one's convictions; equally, convictions are the driving force behind one's actions, and it is the supreme test and self-affirmation of a principle to apply it continually to reality.

I agree... it is also the supreme test of our character. You just aptly described an effect of moral law. Doing what's right can't help but make us better people, just as doing what's wrong can't help but make us worse. People don't always begin doing what's right for all the right reasons, but it still makes them better people as they discover that it is in their own best interests to do it, even if for any reason.

Upset that two-way continuum by separating rational principle from action, or the action from the conviction, and it's like pouring sand into your engine.

If it might 'work' once or twice, (pragmatism) only sets one up for a bigger seizure down the line.

I don't see any disagreement here. Were you referring to my reference to acting contrary to our own thoughts and emotions? If you are, I'll be happy to clarify that approach.

Greg

[anthony]

Tony writes:

Greg, Now it's here that we don't overlap and will not agree.

That's what makes things interesting.

It is deleterious to the self-directing, volitional nature of man's consciousness to hold a conviction and to do something - to say nothing of live a life - contrary to it.

People know right from wrong and choose to do wrong all the time... and are hell bent on destroying themselves left and right. Why is that? This isn't an argumentative question as we'll both likely come up with similar answers. I just wanted to know your thoughts on it.

Firstly, enough 'wrong' (self-contradictory) actions will have destructive consequences on one's convictions; equally, convictions are the driving force behind one's actions, and it is the supreme test and self-affirmation of a principle to apply it continually to reality.

I agree... it is also the supreme test of our character. You just aptly described an effect of moral law. Doing what's right can't help but make us better people, just as doing what's wrong can't help but make us worse. People don't always begin doing what's right for all the right reasons, but it still makes them better people as they discover that it is in their own best interests to do it, even if for any reason.

Upset that two-way continuum by separating rational principle from action, or the action from the conviction, and it's like pouring sand into your engine.

If it might 'work' once or twice, (pragmatism) only sets one up for a bigger seizure down the line.

I don't see any disagreement here. Were you referring to my reference to acting contrary to our own thoughts and emotions? If you are, I'll be happy to clarify that approach.

Greg

Greg: The "people" you speak of. Who know right from wrong, and act otherwise.

Who are they, precisely? I know it's not you, and I'm sure it's not those you care for and respect, so what is it that delineates you from those other people? In short, you do implicitly admit that it doesn't apply to everyone. So it's not essentially man's nature to be evil. What makes the difference?

Don't you agree there are two fundamental departures from "right"?

a. One's principles are wrong. b. The principles are right, but one contravenes them.

Thing is, how does one know: either what the "right" principles are - or when and why one acts against (or for)them? Only by reasoned thought, action and introspection. Not by consequence(directly). Though trial and error plays a secondary role naturally.

You see, your ~any reason will do~ argument can't hold up then. As non-omniscient beings, outcomes are never forseeable or guaranteed, which all the more reinforces the need for forming reality-based convictions and sticking to them in thought and action. Conversely it has been your general approach that the right way IS to act contrary to one's thoughts and feelings, and that convictions are (I presume) conferred upon one.

Which makes sense (only) if one is a believer and has faith that God, who sees all and rewards right behavior, has set the absolute standards of conviction for mankind.

The observable fact that a Christian and an Objectivist both honor life; and, that the "right behavior" -for both groups- has close parallels in ways, at times; and, that Christians (as I've been arguing earlier) are often highly rational, selectively;

and, that both logically develop good characters as a result of staying true to their conviction -- can't overcome that single difference which we have in the nature of man and existence.

[anthony]

good. That's too bad for them. I'm not saying that every Christian is a completely evil monster hell bent on destruction. A lot of Christians are bad Christians which is what makes them better humans.

I will call immorality when I see it. I have no qualms with that. That is justice. Only morality in Objectivism is not about social concern it's about the rational self interest of the individual. Why are you even bringing up their ability to run a business? If only the perfectly moral could run a business the world would never have advanced this far!

I'd trade with any man who did not directly wish to harm me whether he believes in any mystical nonsense like god, spirits, vampires, Zeus, the ghost up the mountain, fairies, astrology, or the big bang theory. I don't think I said otherwise. In terms of morality, it isn't how much a man produces that counts. In Objectivist ethics, there is nothing stopping a man of modest ability from being fully moral.

It is to the individual's great detriment to assert knowledge through faith. In that act, he lands a terrible blow to the validity of his mind and senses. This contradiction will plague his mind with self doubt and despair, either consciously or subconsciously, and infect every facet of his life. It'll prevent the achievement of happiness that is the moral purpose of his life. It is what taking something on faith does to the individual that is immoral.

If a man preaches love for life, then takes a sword and disembowels himself simply because he felt like it then that is extremely immoral. I would not say, 'well look, it isn't of any concern to me since he didn't hurt me, only himself, so it's outside of the realm of moral judgement.' No, that's not the morality I hold. I am not a libertarian. When I see someone engage in faith, I see it the same way. Faith is the disembowelment of the mind.

Peter, Well thought and written. But you're preaching at me. I was 'converted' long before you came along, so I know this stuff --and I have the life experience to confirm it.

Don't you consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum? One whom I think has earned his stripes here with good nature, his often good sense and an honest exposure of his belief-system. "Call it when you see it", but know what you're seeing first. You don't find value in these debates of comparisons of our ideologies, or in learning more about the principles of the religious people who's lives surround you? Speak for yourself, but I do. Or - as well, that Objectivists can teach something to Christians - at the least, of Capitalism and individual rights, and why separation of Church and state are non-negotiable? Can't you tell that it was a respect for Objectivism that brought this poster here - and that he has stayed on despite some pressure?

I've learned that one thing lacking in Objectivism is grace: grace under pressure, and grace when on top. It denotes lack of confidence and a defensiveness I believe, of what's basically a brand new philosophy (as philosophies go). We prize its neighbor, benevolence, but I notice some confusion in how to practise it. It is not "civility", per se(particularly not when at the expense of honesty). Do you know that benevolence relates to your "justice" too? If one is going to stick it to the "immoral", it is justice first to benevolently assume before that point, that nobody is automatically "immoral". Simply by dint of his being, or calling himself, a Christian, etc., etc. And, that it takes more than a label to make the man.

We have or have had at OL, Socialists and Muslims, and (ow!)skeptics. I've also on occasions blown my top with one or other. But long run, I see looking back, that the experience was invaluable to my thinking. Who knows? maybe for them too.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Don't you [Peter] consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum?

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is - while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

[anthony]

Don't you [Peter] consider also you are new here to be questioning the membership of a poster on the forum?

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is - while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

Exactly. That you are not new here gives you more right to state your case, in my mind.

We are on somebody else's property, we shouldn't forget. The owner will have the final say.

Condemning Greg for his condemnatoriness. OK. ;)

And I'm not going to judge him by Christian standards, that'd be hypocritical, but by Greg the individual - and I like the guy despite some odd epistemology he has.

[moralist]

Ellen writes:

I'm far from being new here, and I, too, wonder why Greg is here.

I know why you're here, Ellen. It's to complain about why I'm here.

My belief is that he finds this site a congenial place for bragging about how rewarded for virtue he thinks he is

Everyone is rewarded for doing what's morally right by becoming better people. It's not personal. That moral law is as universal as gravity. It's common for people who disagree with this principle to try to personalize it in order to invalidate it.

while also indulging a most unChristian zest for condemnatoriness against categories of people of whom other list members aren't fond.

Ellen

No one can wear a shoe that doesn't fit.

Greg