The Number of the Beast

Rat,

I can see you've managed to avoid the prime response required for any atheist/theist debate. (Proving that your postulation exists. As I've said, this responsibility lies with you, and no one else here has to prove anything.)

You've also accomplished something I didn't think was possible, namely getting self-described Objectivists to promote and laud you personally despite your being a Catholic. (Catholics, in case some folks have forgotten, believe in Original Sin. That should bring out the middle finger of any Objectivist. Even if the Man-hater writes in a seemingly polite, coherent fashion. If you don't believe in Original Sin, you're not a Catholic, so don't call yourself one.)

The Number of the Beast crap is another attempt to evade the responsibility of proof. You do it quite well, this distracting from prime questions. Whenever someone says "Prove God" you simply reply "Prove volition", or "Prove free will" or "Prove consciousness". (Ignoring that the universe has never indicated to anyone ever that It requires a causal, conscious explanation, and that the tools of man's mind have developed through evolutionary stages and didn't appear all of the sudden, out of a vacuum.)

And, of course, once you acknowledge that you can't prove God's existence, you attempt to sanctify faith as a means to gaining knowledge. That's all faith is. It's not hope, it's not a prayer. It's a (mistaken) means of gaining knowledge. Faith, as I've said before, is the easiest route for Man-haters to take, as they can constantly deflect responsibility by pointing out the limited nature of Man's cognition. We all know that we don't know everything, Rat. That's not a new, or valid, argument.

I honestly don't see what there is to gain by you avoiding your responsibility. Is there some deception involved? Or have you just forgotten that the question was posed? Either way, I'll put it forward again, just in case. If others respond to anything you say without you first proving your God exists, I can't and wouldn't stop them. I can, however, call them naive if they think anything useful can be gleaned from a person who believes Man should live and die by the word of some mysterious ghost.

So, prove It.

(And thanks, I don't need your helpful cut-and-paste job to know what I just said. I can scroll up if I forget. Just the facts, jack.)

Post 21

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:24pm

" Therefore, prudence is not a firm enough foundation for morality because it eventually yields to might makes right."

1: i'm not sure if this is true. the fact of the matter is that, if you hurt enough people, they will eventually unite against you, and when enough of them unite, they will be mightier than you.

2: if it is true, then I see no reason to go along with it. of course, rand proposed a system of ethics against "might is right", but these ethics are meant as a consequence, not a primary. the prime question one must ask is: what is beneficial? morality is just an attempt to answer this. if it is a wrong answer to this question, it does not maintain its credit. it is not that we need morality in and of itself. it is that we need to know how to live in our own interests, and the objectivist ethics is proposed as a guide for doing so. if morality is against interest,, there is no longer any reason to be moral. so, if we take you at your word on this, why be good?

"If so, what holds you back from committing murder?� Your self-interest � i.e., that murder would not produce any benefits for you? Or is the real reason you refrain from such a heinous crime the irreparable harm you would have done to another?"

your question is not very useful, at least not with me as a subject, in that I have no incentive or reason to murder anyone. your question seems to imply that there would be cases where I would want to kill someone but would be compelled not to. fact is, I have no reason to murder anyone in the first place, and I don't see any instance in the forseeable future in which this would even come up. I have no large outstanding grievances against anyone, i'm materially comfortable and secure, and I am dispositionally not particularly prone towards physical violence. for me this question is a moot issue: even if we assume that I could act with impunity, what would it gain me to murder someone?

Post 22

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 2:36pm

Post 18 is inappropriate, Rat. The reason you're being un-sanctioned off the board isn't because you've hit a nerve confirming your 'theory' that Atheism is the true core of Objectivism. Perhaps it has something to do with insulting their intelligence and not considering their arguments time and time again? In any case, all your little un-sanctioning experiment has proved is that you're a jerk.

And to answer your question, Atheism is not central to the system of Objectivism, it is a consequence of it. I won't bother to explain why, when it's been done by so many other people in this and other threads. So, for one to accept that God exists implies that one is not an Objectivist.

Atheism is about as central to Objectivism as the Pythagorean Theorem is central to Plane Geometry. Geometry isn't based upon the Pythagorean Theorem, but to deny the Pythagorean Theorem is to deny the axioms of Plane Geometry. It's the same with the existance of God and Objectivism.

Post 23

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:08pm

Jeremy:

You complained: >>I can see you've managed to avoid the prime response required for any atheist/theist debate. (Proving that your postulation exists. As I've said, this responsibility lies with you, and no one else here has to prove anything.)<<

There one big problem with all this. I never put forward a debate over the existence of God.

The issue I had been exploring was why Objectivism gratuitously denies the existence of God. It appears to me that such a denial forces Objectivism into a metaphysical materialism which puts it odds with its embrace of consciousness and volition as the metaphysical foundation of man's freedom to act. This is a fundamental problem for Objectivism. If reality is merely material, then we are nothing but automatons whose actions are predetermined by the laws of physics. Only a reality that is trans-material can allow for the genuine experience of consciousness as self-awareness and volition as free will rather than illusion.

I noted that such a trans-material reality possibly makes room for God. What appears to have eluded you and many others, in what I can only describe as panicked flight from anything that might permit the existence of God, is that a trans-material reality may not require God. In other words, you can be an atheist and not a materialist. So my point was not that Objectivists should not be atheists; it was that should not let their atheism drive Objectivism down the nihilistic dead end of materialism.

Yet, it is obvious that atheism is so paramount in the belief systems of many of the Objectivists here, that they will countenance the materialist implications of their metaphysics that arises from Objectivism's gratuitous proclamation of atheism. And all I asked is why must atheism be central to Objectivism rather than incidental to it. Now I understand better -- and it has everything to do with faith and next to nothing with reason.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 24

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:21pm

Jeremy:

You indicted me for the crime of being Catholic by the following:

You've also accomplished something I didn't think was possible, namely getting self-described Objectivists to promote and laud you personally despite your being a Catholic. (Catholics, in case some folks have forgotten, believe in Original Sin. That should bring out the middle finger of any Objectivist. Even if the Man-hater writes in a seemingly polite, coherent fashion. If you don't believe in Original Sin, you're not a Catholic, so don't call yourself one.)

Well, I don't know what you think is so awful about Original Sin, but it's mostly commonsense. It is the doctrine that man is imperfect and imperfectable. It is a distinctly, thank goodness, anti-utopian concept. Man has a fallen nature which allows him to do evil. He is born with that fallen nature and will remain ignorant of good unless he is taught to be moral.

Now think about that. What child is anything but a clever beast until taught to be good? The doctrine of Original Sin describes our human nature: We naturally animals, but capable of being more -- i.e., human. From this doctrine Catholics understand their duty to raise children to be moral, to be human. How that is a doctrine of man-hating is beyond me.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 25

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:30pm

Jeremy:

You wondered and then demanded:

I honestly don't see what there is to gain by you avoiding your responsibility. Is there some deception involved? Or have you just forgotten that the question was posed? Either way, I'll put it forward again, just in case. If others respond to anything you say without you first proving your God exists, I can't and wouldn't stop them. I can, however, call them naive if they think anything useful can be gleaned from a person who believes Man should live and die by the word of some mysterious ghost.

So, prove It.

First of all, what responsibility? How can an Objectivist even imagine that I have duty to you to provide you with something you refuse to obtain for yourself? Am I your slave? Is my time here to be spent for your benefit?

If I do not want to do your thinking for you, it is damn well my right not to.

Now get a clue. God is outside the realm of science. There is no proof of his existence that will satisfy you. So why should I engage in any effort that does me no good? What kind of Objectivist are you to whine about my refusal to do your bidding?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 26

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:32pm

Robert:

You've raised a number of interesting points regarding prudence and morality, which I will address when I have some more time to do so.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 27

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:37pm

Dear Nate:

You opined: >>In any case, all your little un-sanctioning experiment has proved is that you're a jerk.<<

I'm sorry you lack a sense of humor, but I suspect Post 18 wouldn't be sure a burr for you if it didn't hit upon the truth.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

P.S. Atheism is not a consequence of Objectivism metaphysics if the axiom of volition truly means freedom of action and not just some materialist illusion.

Post 28

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:42pm

Okay, that's what I thought. You can't prove God--and don't deny you've been stating God exists and that this is the basis for even confronting Objectivists here about their atheism--and so you simply avoid the question. That's fine. I knew you would. But since you admit--through omission--that you can't prove God, don't mention it again as being an acceptable concept in the universe unless you also include my purple dragons. My purple dragons gave mankind consciousness, and decide who lives and dies. They also made Man a sinful creature by nature, unable to perform good lest he sacrifice himself to some cause not relevant to his self-interest. So, don't you dare deny reason by denying that my purple dragons might exist. The universe "has room" for them. The only way you can prove they don't exist is through scientific inquiry, which is unfortunate for me because I had the stupidity to actually physically describe my deity. You don't have that problem, do ya?

In any case, since the limit of your argument has been found, we've reached the point of diminishing returns. Delusions, dishonesty and fraudulent concepts and arguments are not my idea of fun.

(And I won't sleep until I can read your fantastically witty reply!)

Post 29

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:01pm

Dear Citizen Rat,

You define free will as freedom of action. Freedom of action-- to do what? Of course we're constrained by our environments. How does this imply that we aren't free to choose? Which Law of Physics predicts that I'm intending to type a response to you on this keyboard, as opposed to intending to move air particles in the vicinity of my keyboard?

Sincerely,
Nate T.

Post 30

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:24pm

Bill,

You said the purpose of God is hope, and that you believe in hell. The Bible says, "... wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: ... strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Mat 7:13-14) So your God of hope has produced most people for the sole purpose of tormenting for eternity in hell. That is not a God of hope, that is a God terror; such a God puts Muslim terrorists to shame.

Since I've answered the volition nonsense elsewhere, I'll skip that here.

To my question, "who made God?" you said: Who made the universe? (This is my clever way of saying �no one� or �I don�t know� by illustrating that atheists also lack an answer to the most basic of questions.) But it is only you who does not have an answer, because it is your question, not the atheists'. Only you assume that because there is a universe, someone had to make it, based on the principle that everything that exists must have a "creative" cause.

If the principle were true it would apply to a God as well, that is, if a God existed. Obviously, if everything must be created it leads to an endless regress, an absurdity. If you admit everything does not have to be created, the atheist agrees, because, here is the universe, and nobody created it.

To my question, "does God do anything," you said, The Bible, through various literary styles from allegory to testimony, records God�s interaction with the history of man. The preface to my question was, "All action requires change." Therefore, your God changes. No real existent can be unchanging.
.
You said, "God is perfectly good, which I accept to be true by theodicy," but that does not answer my question. Which theodicy do you base you evaluation on? I specifically asked, "By what standard is your judgement made?" Theodicy is just the study of such standards, (all of which, by the way, are self-contradictory.)

You said, "Faith is the belief that something is true when I lack sufficient evidence to know without doubt." That is insane. There are many things I do not know perfectly, or only partially, or with reservation. In such cases, I never believe they are true, only probable or possible, and make my decisions based on practical risk analysis. I never risk more than the prize is worth for example, always take the long view, and always make preparations for what cannot or is not yet known. That has nothing to do with faith.

Faith is believing something without evidence, or even contrary to evidence. If you are Catholic, for example, you believe in transubstantiation. There is hardly a more superstitious belief on the face of the earth. It flies in the face of reason and decency, yet millions of people believe it on no other basis than "faith."

Thank you for answering my questions. I am not trying to convince you, but thought you might be interested in why your arguments are not convincing most Objectivists.

Regi

Post 31

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 5:22pm

Citizen Rat is one of only two posters here of which it is true that the more detail they go into about their philosophy, the more ridiculous they sound--and the less I feel the need to reply. I will, however, get around to dealing with what I regard as the best points he has raised, for the benefit of rational third parties who may be looking in.

Post 32

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:03pm

Why is anyone here arguing with rat in the first place? Isn't it obvious that he is irrational? Leave him be, why argue with an altruist? Objectivists don't set out to change a persons mind, they don't go door to door and ask people to take a look into the philosophy. Objectivism is for people who understand the philosophy or for people that hope to understand it. What will happen if we argue with him? Nothing. There is no point. Let him scream and yell his ideas however much he wants, it should hold no merit here.

Post 33

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:53pm

True, but the (somewhat porous) interface between his bits of rationality and his irrationality consists of his declared inability to reconcile volition, life, and consciousness with causation and the world of matter with which he thinks science deals exclusively. These issues have been discussed in several of the various replies to Citizen Rat (question: why such a disagreeable screen name?), but it might be instructive to young minds to deal a bit more with this confusion. I think there are a few more observations that might be made.

Post 34

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:06pm

Rat:
as you can see, your atlas count has gone sky high. you have me to blame for this. I protest your non-falsifiable experiment of deliberately taunting objectivists in hopes of racking up non sanction votes, so that you can use said non sanction votes as "evidence" that objectivists are intolerant, even though it proves nothing other than that you upset people by condescendingly accusing them of being intolerant, than, in circular logic fashion, hope to insult them into non-sanctioning you so you can use the fact they are insulted as evidence that objectivists are intolerant. well, i'm not letting your experiment stand. i've given you a bunch of new atlas points, so as to completely muck up your hope of getting kicked back to zero statues so you can claim persecution.

Post 35

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:56pm

I'd like to note that I'm completely willing to discuss absolutely anything relevant to Objectivism and Objectivists, even with someone as confused on the subject as Rat shows himself to be. With an exception, though. I don't want to hear about unexplored feelings, or faith, or things he "just knows" or thinks "there is room for". I don't want to read that he believes in "God" or transubstantiation or Original Sin or Eden or anything else related to the fear of death and the unknown that he would like to pass off as philosophically challenging.

Literature, music, news, sports, movies, general culture, politics...these things are acceptable to me, as far as Rat goes. The rest is unimportant tripe, and totally without merit or valid cause until he provides a detailed explanation of what this God of his is--an impossibility, as Rat himself says; which leaves it meritless for all time. Stick to the facts, and we'll all get along fine. The rest is purposeless, and a tiring form of mental masturbation. (Isn't that a sin as well?)

Post 36

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:43pm

Hello Everyone

I gathered Citizen Rat quotations from the "Number of the Beast" thread and the "Atheist Internet Outreach Response" thread, and rearranged them HUMOROUSLY to form a nearly coherent summary. I will not attempt to refute any of these quotes. They are simply here to highlight the stark contrast of Citizen Rat's posts with the fundamental principles of those gathered here at SOLO. This is not a personal attack, as there is tremendous opportunity to learn from those who will challenge your ideas. I appreciate and encourage his contributions at SOLO. Citizen Rat has been the motivation behind many people reexamining their ideas, and he has done it with civility. I am grateful, but I couldn't get around the fact I thought much of it was FUNNY. So... may I present (with a smile) Citizen Rat:

"The issue I had been exploring was why Objectivism gratuitously denies the existence of God. It appears to me that such a denial forces Objectivism into a metaphysical materialism which puts it odds with its embrace of consciousness and volition as the metaphysical foundation of man's freedom to act. This is a fundamental problem for Objectivism." (post 23 Number of the Beast)

"The problem with Objectivism is that it claims all possible knowledge is scientific -- that is, the entirety of reality is objectively knowable and reducible to falsifiable statements of truth." (post 26 Atheist Internet Outreach Response)

"A third way to account for our experience of self-awareness and free will is to not think about it. This is the Objectivist solution." (post 83 AIOR)

"Morality can only endure if it is grounded in the recognition of the dignity of the other, which is at odds with Objectivism's exclusive reliance upon self-interest." (post 8 NB)

"Objectivist morality, being grounded exclusively in self-interest, is essentially a call for prudence, which would do little to restrain a Randian hero's will to power if only he can rationalize it ala the denizens of Galt's Gulch." (post 9 NB)

"In an ironic way, Galt�s Gulch is a parasitical society. It is only possible in the first place and then sustainable by its consumption of wealth produced outside of it � that is, the wealth the Galtians created in their prior lives or that which Ragnar the pirate steals. How does it survive once the wealth of its denizens is consumed and there is no wealth from the outside world left to steal?" (post 16 NB)

"You have been going on and on about how irrational my belief in God is, when in fact I have offered no argument regarding such." (post 80 AIOR)

"He is the Creator (Eden), the Covenanter (Noah, Abraham, and Moses), and the Redeemer (Christ). The Bible, through various literary styles from allegory to testimony, records God�s interaction with the history of man." (post 15 NB)

"But there is nothing contradictory between a person freely making a choice and God knowing that that is the choice that will be made." (post 48 AIOR)

"Well, I don't know what you think is so awful about Original Sin, but it's mostly commonsense."(post 24 NB)

"For the Church to try to re-direct a homosexual who has made a fetish of his sexual desires is not bad thing." (post 48 AIOR)

"Sometimes things must be taken on faith -- for example, good and evil -- because we cannot know these things scientifically." (post 35 AIOR)

"So don't blame the Church. Blame the keepers of the Church for their abandonment of the Church's teachings." (post 48 AIOR)

"I hope you can gather from my response that much of what Catholicism teaches is in accord with Objectivism, because Objectivism does contain a great deal of truth." (post 54 AIOR)

"The fact is you have a free will. You can choose to do good or evil. You may not justify your evil by resorting to authority. You must think for yourself in the end." (post 48 AIOR)

Post 37

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:08am

Dave,

You're compilation is great! Don't forget that blurb about human volitional consciousness being a "causeless cause" and that because Objectivists cannot explain volition scientifically . . . it has to be faith! Or the part about Objectivists believing human consciousness conforming to the "deterministic" laws of nature and that the logical conclusion from that line of thought is that free will is an illusion! Others have refuted these errors and so I am not even going to try. Arguing with trolls (social, not metaphysical) feels a lot like banging your head on a brick wall, more so if they claim there are other means to truth than reason.

Then again, there is no harm in checking your premises. If there is a contradiction in your reasoning, it is in the rational self-interest of an individual to correct any honest errors. I appreciate the efforts of every Objectivist who have tried their best but, alas, to no avail. If anything was gained at all, it was that at least the issues at hand have been clarified for everyone to read.

Now, this volitional consciousness will choose to move on from reading about how to beat a dead horse. I hope against hope SOLO's resident troll will do the same. You can call that faith if you want.

Post 38

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:20pm

Robert:

In response to my now notorious Post 18, you stated: >>I gave you a check mark on this post just to spite you. i'm not going to give you the privilige or martyrdom after this offensive taunt.<<

I�m a bit confused here. Why would any self-respecting Objectivist think martyrdom is a privilege?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 39

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:22pm