No Gods, No Masters

muraii wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Obligatory quote:

Kung Fu Monkey[/url]]There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Thank you. :D

++

Oh man, that gave me a good laugh after a long day at work, thank you.

Cheeze, I would pay good money for you give up the convoluted syntax and high-falutin' words and say what you mean in simple declarative statements.

In your initial post, I read:

'In many discussions, atheists are compared to Nazis or Stalinists. Those ideologies are mistakenly assumed to be based on atheism, but actually only include it as a side issue. What ideology could be cited as actually atheist? I think it's Objectivism. This is because the individualism described in Objectivism is incompatible with belief in an all-powerful God; Objectivism seems to be based on the rejection of God. And Ayn Rand came before the current crop of "militant atheists".'

To which Robear responds, "Any argument that holds up Objectivism as a positive example is damaged by the deeply flawed examples Objectivists have put before the world."

Now it should be clear why I'm totally confused about why Objectivism would *improve* an argument in support of atheism... Either I misread your meaning, or we're talking at cross purposes again...

Robear wrote:

Cheeze, I would pay good money for you give up the convoluted syntax and high-falutin' words and say what you mean in simple declarative statements. :-)

I did not know "improve" was a high-falutin' word. Or that those were not simple declarative statements. ; D

In your initial post, I read:

'In many discussions, atheists are compared to Nazis or Stalinists. Those ideologies are mistakenly assumed to be based on atheism, but actually only include it as a side issue. What ideology could be cited as actually atheist? I think it's Objectivism. This is because the individualism described in Objectivism is incompatible with belief in an all-powerful God; Objectivism seems to be based on the rejection of God. And Ayn Rand came before the current crop of "militant atheists".'

To which Robear responds, "Any argument that holds up Objectivism as a positive example is damaged by the deeply flawed examples Objectivists have put before the world."

Now it should be clear why I'm totally confused about why Objectivism would *improve* an argument in support of atheism... Either I misread your meaning, or we're talking at cross purposes again...

Sometimes the things you write confuse *me* and it takes a while to draw out what you're thinking and where the mistaken assumption you've made is. This one is simple: I'm not trying to improve this argument in support of atheism. I'm not trying to hold up Objectivism as a positive example.

What I *am* trying to do is sour this one particular argument that is used in support of atheism by way of how negative an example many people consider Objectivism. I don't like this argument. I've got better ones that I do like that are in support of atheism, and if this particular argument was soured, I'd consider that an improvement of the overall conversation.

See, I don't have an issue with atheism OR religious belief. I don't think negatively of either. So arguments that support one at the expense of the other are, obviously, problematic for me given my motivations. You misunderstood my motivations.

But... You raised Objectivism as an example, not us (to the best of my knowledge) and you seemed to do it approvingly. Did you actually just bring something up just to knock it down, not as a rhetorical device but as the main point of a thread?

I would see that as analogous to raising [insert questionable action by religious org] as an example of any religion in particular, or religion itself in general, which is abundant to the point of ubiquity in many discussions among atheists. Specifically, the point Cheeze was raising is "given atheist movements, how much influence does religion really have with people?" And I'd say he's making a really good point.

"If you live by the sword, you die by the sword," is a famous biblical aphorism (said by Jesus himself) that can be interpreted in at least two ways. One is obviously not to fall prey to the attractions of violence; but the other is, ironically enough, diametrically opposite. It seems to promise a glorious death in battle so long as you live by violent principles. Like Objectivism, religious principles and books cannot match the power of confirmation bias. You see what you want to see.

In that sense, it makes about as much sense to say that religion caused the Crusades as it is to say that atheism caused the mass starvations in Communist China as well as horrifying depredations of The Cultural Revolution.

Robear wrote:

But... You raised Objectivism as an example, not us (to the best of my knowledge) and you seemed to do it approvingly. Did you actually just bring something up just to knock it down, not as a rhetorical device but as the main point of a thread?

When the sequence goes "Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao" the next person raised as an example probably isn't being raised approvingly. (edit) I brought something up that most people disapprove of, and like I said in the OP, it differs from those other examples in that it doesn't come with the baggage of the argument over whether it's 'truly' atheist: there's no argument Rand was an atheist, or about the importance atheism plays in Objectivism.

Did you really think I was addressing all those times atheists bring up Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao as *good* examples for atheism, but are then frustrated by religious types who argue those are not actually atheists? Because that's the only situation where what you're saying makes sense. In which case, how the heck did you get there?

LarryC wrote:

Ugly, evil, hateful behavior is caused by neither religion nor by atheism

Exactly, it's caused by the ending to Mass Effect 3.

nel e nel wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Ugly, evil, hateful behavior is caused by neither religion nor by atheism

Exactly, it's caused by the ending to Mass Effect 3.

I, for one, refuse to believe in the existence of the ending of Mass Effect; I'm a strong athendingest.

How is it like living without a moral compass?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Ugly, evil, hateful behavior is caused by neither religion nor by atheism

Exactly, it's caused by the ending to Mass Effect 3.

I, for one, refuse to believe in the existence of the ending of Mass Effect; I'm a strong athendingest.

There are many people who don't see in that ending any evidence of intelligent design.

Zing!

Can we take a shuffle back to fascism being tied with atheism, and how insanely wrong that is? The atheism and communism talk can be had as well. But, and it is a stretch, but religion is deeply intwined with fascism, radical nationalism.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My angle was that we have an ideology that is (1) unarguably atheist.

It's not actually. The political group in the United States that is most supportive of objectivism is also the group which most loudly supports Christian faith and institutions. Paul Ryan is a great example of a politically powerful person who both supports objectivist ideals and is a faithful Christian. Objectivism may trace its roots to an atheist, but since then it has been absorbed almost entirely by theists, at least in the US. Blaming atheists for things accomplished in the name of Objectivism is kind of like blaming the Chinese for the fire bombing of Dresden since they invented gunpowder.

KingGorilla wrote:

Can we take a shuffle back to fascism being tied with atheism, and how insanely wrong that is? The atheism and communism talk can be had as well. But, and it is a stretch, but religion is deeply intwined with fascism, radical nationalism.

I guess, just, you know--considering the OP was about how to avoid those kinds of talks in the first place, it's an odd request. A derail into Mass Effect jokes seems just as good.

Yonder wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

My angle was that we have an ideology that is (1) unarguably atheist.

It's not actually. The political group in the United States that is most supportive of objectivism is also the group which most loudly supports Christian faith and institutions. Paul Ryan is a great example of a politically powerful person who both supports objectivist ideals and is a faithful Christian. Objectivism may trace its roots to an atheist, but since then it has been absorbed almost entirely by theists, at least in the US. Blaming atheists for things accomplished in the name of Objectivism is kind of like blaming the Chinese for the fire bombing of Dresden since they invented gunpowder.

Except atheism *is* an Objectivist ideal. So he only supports *some* of them.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Except atheism *is* an Objectivist ideal. So he only supports *some* of them.

My understanding of it is that Objectivism only requires a non-interventionist deity, not no deity. As long as the universe wasn't being changed, a god or gods could exist without conflicting. Souls, versions of an after-life that take place outside of the universe, prime mover universe creator, etc. are not in conflict with the version of Objectivism I am familiar with(from reading some of Rand's books and talking with people that ascribe to at least some of the tenets) and have seen described on various wiki pages. So an atheist, a deist, and a fervent believer in a god that doesn't interact with this universe could all be Objectivists.

Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Except atheism *is* an Objectivist ideal. So he only supports *some* of them.

My understanding of it is that Objectivism only requires a non-interventionist deity, not no deity. As long as the universe wasn't being changed, a god or gods could exist without conflicting. Souls, versions of an after-life that take place outside of the universe, prime mover universe creator, etc. are not in conflict with the version of Objectivism I am familiar with(from reading some of Rand's books and talking with people that ascribe to at least some of the tenets) and have seen described on various wiki pages. So an atheist, a deist, and a fervent believer in a god that doesn't interact with this universe could all be Objectivists.

They could exist without conflicting, but you couldn't believe in them: what basis would you have for rational, fact-based belief--something essential in Objectivism--in a non-interventionist deity? If the deity doesn't intervene in some way, then how did you acquire facts about that deity? It's the old "Dragon in my Garage" issue.

The Carl Sagan one, not the weclock one.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Yonder wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

My angle was that we have an ideology that is (1) unarguably atheist.

It's not actually. The political group in the United States that is most supportive of objectivism is also the group which most loudly supports Christian faith and institutions. Paul Ryan is a great example of a politically powerful person who both supports objectivist ideals and is a faithful Christian. Objectivism may trace its roots to an atheist, but since then it has been absorbed almost entirely by theists, at least in the US. Blaming atheists for things accomplished in the name of Objectivism is kind of like blaming the Chinese for the fire bombing of Dresden since they invented gunpowder.

Except atheism *is* an Objectivist ideal. So he only supports *some* of them.

Right, but it is this Christian-Objectivism hybrid which is "causing problems in the world", not Objectivism itself.

You don't even have to go down that road, using "some philosophy that a single atheist made up" as a counterweight to "I am the pope, and the head of nearly the entire Christian faith (protestants were hundreds of years away, but the Orthodox Church had split off around 40 years prior) and I want you all to go kill some Muslims."

Objectivism was unarguably written by an Atheist, I don't think you will be able to go much further before debate is entirely justified.

Yonder wrote:

Right, but it is this Christian-Objectivism hybrid which is "causing problems in the world", not Objectivism itself.

I don't think it's a hybrid. From what I know of him and of Objectivism in general in American politics, it's not a co-mingling of the Objectivism with the Christianity. It's like they aren't faithful Christians (even to their own version of it): they shut their religious beliefs off when they go into Objectivist mode. It's not a mix, it's a case of split ideology.

As a self-professed god-botherer, this conversation strikes me two ways:

1) I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in high school, but that was longer ago than I'm going to admit to. But despite it's repeated use of the word and all it's trappings, I didn't feel like it was really talking about atheism. It's base is a deep, malignant narcissism. There is a god in that world - the self, worshiped with all the fervor of a Dervish's spin.

2) This conversation feels a lot like the one I have to have when Pat Robertson or the Pope open their faces about something and people smear everything that ever vaguely brushed up against the label Christian with the effluvia. She says the word atheist all through her work, therefore anyone else who ever uses the word to describe their world view has to defend against other people conflating her misuse with their beliefs.

momgamer wrote:

As a self-professed god-botherer, this conversation strikes me two ways:

1) I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in high school, but that was longer ago than I'm going to admit to. But despite it's repeated use of the word and all it's trappings, I didn't feel like it was really talking about atheism. It's base is a deep, malignant narcissism. There is a god in that world - the self, worshiped with all the fervor of a Dervish's spin.

2) This conversation feels a lot like the one I have to have when Pat Robertson or the Pope open their faces about something and people smear everything that ever vaguely brushed up against the label Christian with the effluvia. She says the word atheist all through her work, therefore anyone else who ever uses the word to describe their world view has to defend against other people conflating her misuse with their beliefs.

That's what I'm going for: for these kinds of arguments to just be dropped by everyone. To push things along to that point where people feel the only winning move is not to play.

Somebody correct me on this, but doesn't the way Objectivism is currently practiced require, for lack of a better term, "sheep" or unenlightened masses that don't practice Objectivism in order to work for the Objectivists? Doesn't it fall on its face if everyone became Objectivist at once?

Is universal adoption of Objectivism even a goal of the mindset/philosophy?

Or is there some sort of acceptance that despite universal adoption, only those that rise to the top were ordained to do so in circular logic. Or is it elitism and perhaps because you don't have the mental capacity or fortitude to understand it, you weren't meant for greater things?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Right, but it is this Christian-Objectivism hybrid which is "causing problems in the world", not Objectivism itself.

I don't think it's a hybrid. From what I know of him and of Objectivism in general in American politics, it's not a co-mingling of the Objectivism with the Christianity. It's like they aren't faithful Christians (even to their own version of it): they shut their religious beliefs off when they go into Objectivist mode. It's not a mix, it's a case of split ideology.

That's veering awfully close to the "no true Scottsman" fallacy.

fangblackbone wrote:

Somebody correct me on this, but doesn't the way Objectivism is currently practiced require, for lack of a better term, "sheep" or unenlightened masses that don't practice Objectivism in order to work for the Objectivists? Doesn't it fall on its face if everyone became Objectivist at once?

Is universal adoption of Objectivism even a goal of the mindset/philosophy?

Or is there some sort of acceptance that despite universal adoption, only those that rise to the top were ordained to do so in circular logic. Or is it elitism and perhaps because you don't have the mental capacity or fortitude to understand it, you weren't meant for greater things?

I think that the latter is what you see today. The welding of Objectivism and Christianity probably requires seeing success as a proxy for God's favor.

Yonder wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Right, but it is this Christian-Objectivism hybrid which is "causing problems in the world", not Objectivism itself.

I don't think it's a hybrid. From what I know of him and of Objectivism in general in American politics, it's not a co-mingling of the Objectivism with the Christianity. It's like they aren't faithful Christians (even to their own version of it): they shut their religious beliefs off when they go into Objectivist mode. It's not a mix, it's a case of split ideology.

That's veering awfully close to the "no true Scottsman" fallacy.

Maybe. But it's not horseshoes or handgrenades, so...

That would be like pointing to Shoe Shopping as a tyrannical philosophy because of Marcos.

FIXED!

Sorry I couldn't resist ;P

The New Testament is rather radically anti-violence. It does not paint violent conflict in a very positive light. I think it's just logically consistent not to blame the religion when people who profess to be of that religion then turn around and violate every precept like they were ticking it off a checklist.

That would be like pointing to Democracy as a tyrannical philosophy because of Marcos.

LarryC wrote:

The New Testament is rather radically anti-violence. It does not paint violent conflict in a very positive light. I think it's just logically consistent not to blame the religion when people who profess of be of that religion then turn around and violate every precept like they were ticking it off a checklist.

That would be like pointing to Democracy as a tyrannical philosophy because of Marcos.

It's a valid point, but I am very leery of going down the road of pointing out people that seen't "true Christians". This is especially true with Catholicism, since with Excommunication they have an explicit way to mark a person as being non-Catholic even if they claim otherwise. Either Paul Ryan wasn't prominent enough to deserve the distinction, or the Church wasn't that unhappy with his ideals. The former is completely possible, he wasn't on the winning ticket, and I've heard rumors that the universe doesn't actually revolve around the USA.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Kraint wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Except atheism *is* an Objectivist ideal. So he only supports *some* of them.

My understanding of it is that Objectivism only requires a non-interventionist deity, not no deity. As long as the universe wasn't being changed, a god or gods could exist without conflicting. Souls, versions of an after-life that take place outside of the universe, prime mover universe creator, etc. are not in conflict with the version of Objectivism I am familiar with(from reading some of Rand's books and talking with people that ascribe to at least some of the tenets) and have seen described on various wiki pages. So an atheist, a deist, and a fervent believer in a god that doesn't interact with this universe could all be Objectivists.

They could exist without conflicting, but you couldn't believe in them: what basis would you have for rational, fact-based belief--something essential in Objectivism--in a non-interventionist deity? If the deity doesn't intervene in some way, then how did you acquire facts about that deity? It's the old "Dragon in my Garage" issue.

The Carl Sagan one, not the weclock one.

I don't disagree, I think garage-dragons, unicorns and Russel's Teapot are all completely valid comparisons. But let's step back and look at this through the eyes of a theist who would want to use the argument. Doesn't using it require the user to think that belief in a deity, any deity, is irrational and/or not based on fact, to assert that atheism is inherently tied to Objectivism? This seems like it would be problematic to argue for someone who believes faith in a god is logical and rational. (Side note: this might also explain the aforementioned Christians who are big fans of Objectivism.)

Kraint wrote:

I don't disagree, I think garage-dragons, unicorns and Russel's Teapot are all completely valid comparisons. But let's step back and look at this through the eyes of a theist who would want to use the argument. Doesn't using it require the user to think that belief in a deity, any deity, is irrational and/or not based on fact, to assert that atheism is inherently tied to Objectivism? This seems like it would be problematic to argue for someone who believes faith in a god is logical and rational. (Side note: this might also explain the aforementioned Christians who are big fans of Objectivism.)

I'd say no, that you get to step into the shoes of the other person for argument's sake in this case. It's like how when you say someone is a hypocrite, you don't have to believe what they do, you only have to point out the contradiction in the things they believe and do.