No Gods, No Masters

fangblackbone wrote:
In that scenario you describe, they're both still playing the same sport. If you can surpass a god, it's hard to say why it was a god and not just an alien intelligence.

I don't necessarily see a distinction.

If you don't, how do you draw the distinction between religion and science (specifically, xenobiology)?

It's true--it gets hard to tell sometimes that line, especially when it comes to the Romans and the Greeks. It's just that without a distinction between a god and an alien intelligence, it's like that old line about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. So what makes religion...religion and not just bad science? In other words, once you start calling what you're talking about a god, you kinda erase the difference between a theist and an atheist. Or at least, you reduce it to just a matter of bad science.

That of course is going to have some significant knock-on effects: there's no constitutional wall of separation between bad science and good science.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Setting that high a bar for I think will just lead to some really funky results we might not like when discussing things other than Objectivism.

I don't think that is an unreasonable standard at all- requiring something to be caused by X to be labelled X is a fairly low bar to reach.

ruhk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Setting that high a bar for I think will just lead to some really funky results we might not like when discussing things other than Objectivism.

I don't think that is an unreasonable standard at all- requiring something to be caused by X to be labelled X is a fairly low bar to reach.

The example that comes to mind is some of the more ugly forms of nationalism. It opens to door to someone saying they're not really hateful of ethnic minorities, because their hate is caused by beliefs about their country and their nationalism doesn't technically stem from that hate.

If you don't, how do you draw the distinction between religion and science (specifically, xenobiology)?

Emotion, and the past vs. logic and the future. Although that is drastically oversimplifying it. (and does not specifically address xenobiology)

I feel like the only thing religion can see beyond the edge of its nose is heaven or hell. In other words, the future is finite and vague.

Science attempts to model potential in a future off endless possibility.

I don't see anywhere these would conflict with Objectivism. There are no 100% scientists. Even the most atheist person acknowledges and witnesses religion and the effects it has on them through those around them. There are no 100% religionists (I can't come up with a better word or even a real word). Even the most devout, no matter how much they reject or detest science, cannot escape it or the effects it has on them from the outside world.

fangblackbone wrote:
If you don't, how do you draw the distinction between religion and science (specifically, xenobiology)?

Emotion, and the past vs. logic and the future.

...

I don't see anywhere these would conflict with Objectivism.

It would conflict with the focus (whether they succeed or not) Objectivists put on logic vs. emotion. The idea of not believing in anything based on emotion/anything that is non-logical is a core belief.

It would conflict with the focus (whether they succeed or not) Objectivists put on logic vs. emotion. The idea of not believing in anything based on emotion/anything that is non-logical is a core belief.

So what is the meaning of not believing? Do they deny it exists or just devalue it almost completely?

Do they deny, denounce, or devalue music and art?

KingGorilla wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

Re: Objectivism in Bioshock. I've honestly never made it further than an hour or so into that game and get sleepy whenever I read about it. Am I missing anything?

More pseudo intellectualism with a game as a jumping off point, if you ask me. I enjoyed the game. But so much writing I read on it seemed to read like "let me justify the 60 grand my parents paid for me to get a worthless degree." 10 dollar words, from a 2 bit mouth.

It has as much to say about objectivism as Fallout has to say about our nuclear policy.

The book paints a pretty good picture of what a truly "free" market and those that lead that market can fall into when there is no regulations or rules governing their business behaviors, and how people can react to the scenarios that can put them in.

There was a Bioshock book?

The factual problem is that an unrestrained market is not a free market. The trend to cartels, monopolies, and stopping competition is too great. This cannot be stemmed without government intervention.

Bingo, best example I saw in the book was two competing grocery stores. One grocery store owner also owned all of the trash pickup companies for a sector, and then started refusing to pick up his grocery competitor's trash (and actually leaving more trash at his place) so that no one wanted to shop there. Unrestricted, but a monopoly in a completely different field stopped competition.

I can't believe atheists are arguing whether narcissists can believe in an invisible sky friend and still be self-consistent... What, don't we have any dishes to do?

CheezePavilion wrote:

The example that comes to mind is some of the more ugly forms of nationalism. It opens to door to someone saying they're not really hateful of ethnic minorities, because their hate is caused by beliefs about their country and their nationalism doesn't technically stem from that hate.

Why would that matter? They tend to rationalize their position anyway, as few hate groups actually admit to being a hate group. If they're out in the streets gunning people down, propaganda can only go so far, especially since many of these movements tend to include "racial/ethnic/cultural purity" on their platform.

EDIT: all the cleaning was done last night, Robear.

fangblackbone wrote:
It would conflict with the focus (whether they succeed or not) Objectivists put on logic vs. emotion. The idea of not believing in anything based on emotion/anything that is non-logical is a core belief.

So what is the meaning of not believing? Do they deny it exists or just devalue it almost completely?

Do they deny, denounce, or devalue music and art?

Sorry, I may have been unclear: I meant what I said in the sense that a core belief is to reject knowledge where emotion and not reason is the authority. If your distinction between religion vs. the science of alien life is emotion and the past vs. logic and the future, then they shouldn't be believing in anything called religion according to your distinction.

ruhk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

The example that comes to mind is some of the more ugly forms of nationalism. It opens to door to someone saying they're not really hateful of ethnic minorities, because their hate is caused by beliefs about their country and their nationalism doesn't technically stem from that hate.

Why would that matter? They tend to rationalize their position anyway, as few hate groups actually admit to being a hate group. If they're out in the streets gunning people down, propaganda can only go so far, especially since many of these movements tend to include "racial purity" on their platform.

EDIT: all the cleaning was done last night, Robear. :P

Well now you're using two different standards. We started with something is only X if it stems from that, and now we're on to where something is X if it's included on the platform.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Well now you're using two different standards. We started with something is only X if it stems from that, and now we're on to where something is X if it's included on the platform.

Nope.
Looking back, I think the disconnect stems from muddled terms on my end. When I was talking of cause, I meant driving factors or motivations, not creative causation.

ruhk wrote:

Looking back, I think the disconnect stems from muddled terms on my end. When I was talking of cause, I meant driving factors or motivations, not creative causation.

I'd say take a look again at that link from before, and I think it's pretty clear that it is a driving factor/motivation. Whether it stems from something else or not, looking at that it's a lot more than just a 'side effect.'

CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd say take a look again at that link from before, and I think it's pretty clear that it is a driving factor/motivation. Whether it stems from something else or not, looking at that it's a lot more than just a 'side effect.'

I read it when you first linked it, and clearly we aren't seeing the same things.

Objectivism tries to posit a morality based on rational and objective standards, but those standards (only trust your senses, self-service is the only moral act, etc) are just as flawed as the standards that they are arguing against. The result is a rejection of gods, but it's a rejection of gods based on the very practices that the modern atheist movement is fighting.

ruhk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I'd say take a look again at that link from before, and I think it's pretty clear that it is a driving factor/motivation. Whether it stems from something else or not, looking at that it's a lot more than just a 'side effect.'

I read it when you first linked it, and clearly we aren't seeing the same things.

Objectivism tries to posit a morality based on rational and objective standards, but those standards (only trust your senses, self-service is the only moral act, etc) are just as flawed as the standards that they are arguing against. The result is a rejection of gods, but it's a rejection of gods based on the very practices that the modern atheist movement is fighting.

A flawed example of something can still be an example of it. Those kinds of flaws wouldn't disqualify something, it would just mean it's a bad variety.

It's just another religion passing itself off as philosophy, worshipping the ego as god.

ruhk wrote:

It's just another religion passing itself off as philosophy, worshipping the ego as god.

Well now you're redefining atheism as not just the belief that god does not exist, but also something that does not include certain practices that a certain movement is fighting.

Once you open the door to defining these terms in such a way that you get to throw out examples with things like flawed standards, then the whole question falls apart because then people can say things like "the Crusades aren't religion they're just another philosophy passing itself off as a religion" and things like that.

There's too many assumptions being made here about meanings and intent. I don't think this is something we'll agree on.

Idaho State Sen. Introduces Bill Requiring Students To Read ‘Atlas Shrugged’

State Sen. John Goedde, who serves as chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, gave a succinct and candid response when asked why he chose "Atlas Shrugged," Rand's magnum opus and a favorite among small government purists.

“That book made my son a Republican," Goedde said to laughs. Goedde said he doesn't plan to make a hard push for the proposal or hold any hearings on the bill. Rather, he said it was a symbolic gesture.

Tanglebones wrote:

Idaho State Sen. Introduces Bill Requiring Students To Read ‘Atlas Shrugged’

State Sen. John Goedde, who serves as chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, gave a succinct and candid response when asked why he chose "Atlas Shrugged," Rand's magnum opus and a favorite among small government purists.

“That book made my son a Republican," Goedde said to laughs. Goedde said he doesn't plan to make a hard push for the proposal or hold any hearings on the bill. Rather, he said it was a symbolic gesture.

My brain is having trouble grasping the concept that you want to have people believe in small government by creating laws to force them to read a book about small government.

Nevin73 wrote:

My brain is having trouble grasping the concept that you want to have people believe in small government by creating laws to force them to read a book about small government.

IMAGE(http://thegigity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Hip-Hop-Beats-MindBlown-640x350.png)

Does Idaho have a plan to get the literacy rate and ability to such a level that students will be capable of reading Atlas Shrugged?

Texas can pass a law requiring all students to run a 5k before they can get a diploma. Does not mean the kids will be able to.

KingGorilla wrote:

Does Idaho have a plan to get the literacy rate and ability to such a level that students will be capable of reading Atlas Shrugged?

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/SPS_zps79a6e5b0.jpg)

KingGorilla wrote:

Does Idaho have a plan to get the literacy rate and ability to such a level that students will be capable of reading Atlas Shrugged?

I like how you said "reading" instead of "understanding". Neatly sidesteps the whole "incoherent shambles" aspect of the ideas in the book.

Nevin73 wrote:

My brain is having trouble grasping the concept that you want to have people believe in small government by creating laws to force them to read a book about small government.

This is standard practice in Western conservatism--when they say "get Big Gubmint out of little people's lives," they're referring to mine safety regulations, oil drilling restrictions, or the legal rights of homosexuals. When it comes to forcing an actual lifestyle on actual little people, they happily use government as their shillelagh.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

My brain is having trouble grasping the concept that you want to have people believe in small government by creating laws to force them to read a book about small government.

This is standard practice in Western conservatism--when they say "get Big Gubmint out of little people's lives," they're referring to mine safety regulations, oil drilling restrictions, or the legal rights of homosexuals. When it comes to forcing an actual lifestyle on actual little people, they happily use government as their shillelagh.

Also how Republican politicians run on platforms of smaller government, less spending, etc... up until they're in control, and then... not so much.

Robear wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Does Idaho have a plan to get the literacy rate and ability to such a level that students will be capable of reading Atlas Shrugged?

I like how you said "reading" instead of "understanding". Neatly sidesteps the whole "incoherent shambles" aspect of the ideas in the book. :-)

Understanding is out of the question. I went to the best highschool in the state, and I could not have told you any of the meanings in any of the books I read in highschool. My understanding of the meanings behind the Lord of the Flies or A Tale of 2 Cities was not beyond basic plot. Most of the time I was reading Spark Notes anyway.

Hell, even in college, I could not tell you the underpinnings of the Communist Manifesto, the Confessions of St. Augustine of Hippo, Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Any book from that time of my life that I "understood or understand" I probably re-read. I only "understand" what is behind Mark Twain, or A Modern Prometheus because I went back in the last 5 years or so to re-read them. Jesus, re-read a Catcher in the Rye after the age of 25. You just read complaints from some whiny bitch rich kid.

If Atlas Shrugged becomes required reading, kids in Idaho will rent the movie, buy the Spark notes, write a report, and then forget about it like just about every other thing they read or "learn." I got straight A's in math in highschool, all they way to calculus. I can barely do algebra and arithmetic now.

The most use I got from high school, was a scholarship to Marquette. And I re-used an old English textbook to make money tutoring kids over the summer.

I just love this idea that is going around from the far right. The US education system is a liberal conspiracy to brainwash kids into being atheist, communist, fornicating, terrorists. So they must do their own brainwashing by getting creation taught in schools, and removing Thomas Jefferson from history class. The only thing high school or college can be is a step stone. The end goal is a job. Anything not relating to the job gets pushed out.