Mike82ARP

That Christ supposedly "sacrificed" his life as being "maximally altruistic" is debatable. According to the Scriptures, did not Christ rise after three days? Were he to have remained in the grave and ceased to exist would have been "maximally altruistic, but that's not what happened. The question you need to be asking yourself is why did he go to the cross? As my friend Jacob opined, "I think He is the Ultimate Egoist, doing absolutely all that He does for the sake of enjoying His own greatness. – Psalm 115:3". His further thoughts from a Christian perspective (the premise of your initial question) can be read here: http://www.thechristianegoist.com/2013/06/22/the-galt-like-god/

Good to see a lot of the same folks here. After taking a hiatus (we adopted 2 adolescent sisters from Russia 3 years ago and have been busy with them and my other kids) I have a bit of time to pursue other interests. My thoughts, as a Christian, on the question posed by Ba'al. Why is there religion? I'd say religion resulted from man using his faculties of reason and rationale. Presuming an evolutionary emergence of man and intelligence, man observed the world around him as well as cause and effect, e.g., lightning hits a tree and the tree bursts into fire, he bangs his finger and experiences pain, etc. He also observes the world around him and sees trees, plants, animals, etc., and reasons that the existence of himself and the world must have had a cause, but what/who caused it? Given the design of the world around him, e.g., the way plants grow, the weather, the seasons, etc., the use of reason would have him to posit that a mind or some intelligence was involved. But who/what is that mind? Reason would also have to posit an uncaused first cause to avoid a reduction problem. Aristotle saw the necessity of the Prime Mover, but limited the attributes to that of a metaphysical explanation to the existence of the universe. Even primitive animists held to a view of an immaterial aspect of existence, i.e., the soul. Nor do all religions teach of an afterlife, as Zanton implies. SO that can't be the reason. So, the what/why of the surrounding world prompts further thought into this arena. If there is a prime mover, who might that be? Is it person or an impersonal force? If it is a person of some sort, would it reveal itself and how would it do that? Positing there was a prime mover that created the universe, then what was its purpose for doing so? Given man is the only creature with the ability to reason in depth, why do we have this faculty? What was the prime mover's purpose in granting man the ability to reason? Does he/it want a relationship with man? Are we accountable in any way? And so on. Answering these reasonable questions requires thought. Numerous theological treatises, flawed as they may be, continue to be studied and developed by intelligent people.

Jeannie was great, but Samantha (Bewitched) was probably the better Objectivist. Certainly the smarter of the two.

Thanks for sharing MEM. Re: Meyers-Briggs. FWIW, I’ve scored ESTJ and ENTJ, mildly strong in the E and strong in the T and J (the T & J maybe because I am a former cop/fraud investigator). Back to my previous post, I think non-Objectivist atheists are fundamentally collectivists especially when you look at the aforementioned Am Humanist Assoc whose Manifesto III (the current version) promotes the idea of the perfectibility of mankind. From the AHA website: http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III “Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals...The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life." Methinks Rand would turn over in her grave.

Thanks, but you still haven’t answered my question. What if anything is the issue that would bring atheists together? It wouldn’t make sense that it would be discussion of a non-entity (God). I don’t think a group like the Am Humanist Assoc. would attract many atheists as history pretty much refutes their dream of a utopian society. I don’t see any charities that are "atheist sponsored”. Maybe they get together to commiserate about their minority status. I’m not trying to be a smart ass. I just wonder what brings them together.

Objectivists talk about Objectivism. Atheists are not by default Objectivists, so you haven’t answered my question.

I’ve often wondered about what “atheists” talk about. I other words, how does atheism direct your conversation when it comes to politics, economics, etc? DOes it eventually devolve into subjective relativism?

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state. Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties? Kacy has previously explained that his priorities lie with personal liberties and not so much with economic ones. I believe the example he used was he is more concerned with his freedom of mind and choice than his pocketbook. In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs. This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer. From the 1973 film, Cabaret, the song "Money Makes the World Go Round" fits this discussion. Economic freedom and the benefits it provides are primary and the degree of economic freedom we possess will directly impact our personal freedoms. To ignore the economic debacle we are surely facing is foolish.

Ditto. That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

Interesting article. I may have to read his new book. I found the following comment amusing: " For instance, if I do a public debate with a rabbi or a pastor or some other representative of Iron Age philosophy, I know he isn't going to change his mind while talking to me in front of a thousand people. But then I hear from those who watch these debates and have their views change completely" Funny, but I've had the same experience talking with atheists who eventually change their views.

As a current, non-fundy theist, I'd say you were damaged by horror film mysticism, not fundy theism unless you were into voodoo or such.

Given that the Ft Hood terrorist killer has yet to go to trial, I expect Holder to pass on prosecuting this case. While Tsarnaev would be eligible for the death penalty on a federal offense,the Obama admin lacks the 'nads to execute a foreigner, especially one of Islamic persuasion.

Or in a flash of wisdom, he may just give himself up. Double fail. Tsarnaev loses out on his 70 virgins and the taxpayers are on the hook for keeping him in jail for the next few decades.

I’ll bet the people in the locked down areas wish they had guns while the remaining bomber is on the loose. I’d put my money’s on the dude getting terminated, with extreme prejudice.

I was thinking the same thing. The media hounds will be all over this. Obama will likely recall Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emanuel and try to slide gun control through in the frenzy.

Or being a mediocre singer with a good schtick and dance move? (Beiber, GaGa, Black Eyed Peas, etc) Seriously, television and video games have changed people so that they are primarily visually educated and entertained. Watching a symphony orchestra perform isn't all that exciting. Classical music also has longer movements (leider excluded) requiring more time and, egads!, mental engagement than a three minute pop song. Forty+ years ago symphony performances were frequently televised, now even PBS rarely carries this type of programming outside of the latest Andre Rieu holiday tripe. I don't think the brightest minds gravitated toward science as musical genius is isn't the same thing as overall intelligence. 1685 was a banner year: Bach, Handel and Scarlatti were born. Then consider the existing sociological trends facing the composer. I wonder what Shostakovich might have composed had be been born in the US rather than living in the USSR? And remember, if it ain't baroque, fix it!

This is an interesting thread. All of 4 of our kids, are/will be attending private (Christian) school next year. My two sons currently attend. Our recently adopted daughters from Russia (arrived 2/13), in first and fourth grade are in public school for the remainder of the school and will then attend the school where I teach. My boys were adopted when they were 6 and had a very bad life prior. They are ADHD and maybe some Asperger’s, but equally intelligen. Short story, we had to place them in separate schools for the time. One went where I teach and the other in the local public school (which is rated #3 in the state of Florida) . After three years of separate schools, we saw that the son attending my school was at least 4-5 months ahead of the curriculum in the public school and learning more. Homework requirements were also more demanding. I noticed that the public school’s course material, especially in the English and social studies curricula were politically correct, value neutral, socialist and environmentalist wacko oriented. All the garbage I’ve heard about the public schools was true. The elementary son now goes to the private school, but he is struggling academically which I attribute to the low demands/expectations of the public schools. To me, the greatest threat of public schools teaching our children is the socialist/collectivist mentality and insidious post-modern ideology, i.e., ideas we might scoff at are accepted through “tolerance” rather than having their content evaluated and critiqued. The Common Core is yet another government program aimed at egalitarianism and I’m pleased to see Beck and Malkin exposing it for what it is.

What they share is rectitude. Ditto in comparing Orthodox Judaism and Objectivism. By the way, it is no mere coincidence that the first generation Objectivists came largely from Jewish backgrounds even though they were not observant Jews. Ba'al Chatzaf That’s an interesting point, Ba’al. I have to admit, I do not know much about the American Jews and their philosophy/theology outside of the conservative or orthodox sects. Maybe I need to read more Philip Roth?

I just finished this new release and found Henderson’s unique perspective on Christianity and Objectivism very similar to mine. Henderson’s life story is quite different though. He was raised both by his father, a Christian and a step-father, a die-hard Objectivist. Both fathers shared their worldviews which to a young Henderson seemed contrary, but as he grew older he came to appreciate the positive values of both systems. A teen survivor of cancer (twice) Henderson completed undergraduate studies at Brown and a MBA from Columbia. He effectively intertwines his life story with his religious and philosophical struggles and comes to the understanding that the two system may never reconcile, but that they share much more in common than either Christians or Objectivists would admit. http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365627523&sr=8-1&keywords=the+soul+of+atlas

@whYNOT You wrote: "Reality, aligned with a supernatural Existence is a contradiction in terms. To claim both, is having one's cake, and eating it. What's next? Does 'reality' become a "sub-category" of 'meta-reality'? A contradiction would be, “Reality, therefore non-reality” I would opine that natural and supernatural are not contradictions, but subsets of reality. For example CO2. It can exist as a solid or a gas. One can be detected by sight and touch while the gas, barring lab equipment cannot be detected. Reason, founded upon the autonomous, inviolable mind - along with an omniscient Being who knows what you're going to think before you think it, attacks man's certainty of consciousness. The core tenets of Objectivism, as you must know - both eliminated. I don’t understand how God’s omniscience “attacks man’s certainty of consciousness”. If you’re referring to determinism, I’d agree, but I don’t subscribe to determinism. Socially and economically, may Christians and Objectivists have a cordial relationship. But Objectivism needs nothing from Christianity, while seemingly Christianity requires the credibilty O'ism (or any rational ideology) offers. Bring them together, by force or compromise, and one will be wiped out. I can guess which. Neither needs anything from the other. However, their common ground can be used to unite them against the real enemies of reason, namely post-modernism and secondly, freedom, namely collectivism. Hope I got the commas right.

I thought you didn’t believe in all that stuff. You’ve nothing to worry about.

Arguments for God are possible sans evidence, but not with me. A Supreme Being to explain the complexity of most basic life does not address the Supreme Being's Supreme Being, etc. Infinite regression takes you no where except in your own mind. --Brant fantasy does not kill ignorance If, supposedly, the universe had no beginning, why couldn't that apply to the Supreme Being? Your infinite regression comment is specious.

You asked for some Bible verses about universal salvation and I provided you with an easily accessible (i.e., free) online book full of them. Did I do something wrong? You asked me to speculate on what you have learned over the past 27 years of reading the Bible and studying theology, so here goes: my speculation is that you haven't yet figured out what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor. Further, I would speculate conundrum doesn't seem to bother you all that much, since it isn't you who will be the one roasting in hell. Maybe I am wrong in my speculations. Maybe you have thought about this a great deal and have some answers. If so, please let us know what makes you deserving of preordained grace, and not others.* *If your answer is that this is a "mystery", or something akin to that, well, then I give up having a discussion with you. People make all kinds of claim and write books about them. Have you smelled Jesus lately? I'm sure there's a book that tells you how. That doesn't make the content of the books true. Universal salvation is a nice idea, but as I wrote earlier, Jesus need not have come. It is a small minority position and the al evidence for it comes up short. Your harping on this issue makes me wonder if deep down you have a fear of an afterlife and hope of a universal salvation. You then wrote, "what makes you so special that God would commit suicide on your behalf, but not Granny's, or your across the street neighbor." That's an easy question to answer. Nothing special. That's what "grace" is all about. Spend some time examining that attribute of God. What happens between others and God is not my business. Jesus himself said in Luke 9:59, "Let the dead bury their own dead." God's words, not mine, nor my place to argue about it. Do I rejoice that some "roast in hell"? Maybe, for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot., but I didn't make the rules.

What do you call the universe? It it not material? Is is not evidence? You can fantasize about how it may have always existed, but lacking proof of that, it is mere fantasy. I never fantasized about the universe always existing. It's existence always existing and only because nothing can exist apart from existence including non-existence. This is axiomatic. Non-existence as such is even beyond imagination. Everytime you try to imagine it you end up imagining something. Sometimes it's a Supreme Being, who, wonderful to relate!--looks just like a patriarch: an old white man with a beard, albeit up there in the sky looking down. A nasty fellow, really, if you don't eat your vegies, clean your room, study hard, plow the fields and strike down His enemies. --Brant faith and state: mix and match Stipulating your tautology, why would it them be impossible for God to have always existed? Can nothing conceivably exist outside a natural/material realm?

What do you call the universe? It it not material? Is is not evidence? You can fantasize about how it may have always existed, but lacking proof of that, it is mere fantasy.