addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › Check out this new ad slogan in the UK

Check out this new ad slogan in the UK

Sherry
SherryTX
Plano, TX
Post #: 897
http://richarddawkins...­

"Science Flies you to the moon; Religion flies you into buildings."

WOW. All I have to say is that the bus company has a lot of courage to run THAT ad!
All the previous atheist group ads have been pretty tame compared to this. It is of course pretty controversial. But wow - very true.

Perhaps not as productive as one would hope, given the fact it will offend so many. But my jaw hit the floor when I saw it, so figured I would share. (Thanks David for posting this on your Facebook profile - I wouldn't have seen it otherwise!)
Sherry
SherryTX
Plano, TX
Post #: 898
Okay - correction - apparently this isn't actually on a bus...but was an ad one could generate online....this is why I shouldn't try to read and post anything before Noon on a Sunday.....
A former member
Post #: 9
Hi Sherry,

FWIW, I denounce Richard Dawkins with every fiber in my being. His attack on religion does nothing to further his advocacy of atheism and evolution. Just as he attacks the obvious hypocrisy in mainstream religion, I could offer counter attacks with the horrors of godless communists and socialists societies.

1of5 - Why I believe in God and still admire Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXC2U1ZZv4&feature=channel_page­

As I see it, the problem with Richard Dawkins is that he does not recognize that there are people who have a sincere belief in god and hold dear to a moral and ethical existence respecting all mankind and tolerant of different religious views. Richard Dawkins declares in front of adoring college fans that "There is no God and Religion is the Root of all Evil". If I fell into the same trap as Richard Dawkins, I would say that all atheists are leading us down a communist path where mankind has no special place above an inanimate rock. Any rights that an individual has are given to him by his elite leaders who are superior by their social rank instead of granted to all of us equally by our creator. It is simply survival of the fittest and let the weak among us be damned.

Of course I realize that all atheists are not communists, just like Richard Dawkins should realize that all religious people are not mentally ill and terrorists. Using religion in the way he does is disgusting to me and I belief his writings have been toxic to the spiritual beliefs of many people.

I sincerely don't want to attack anyone for their personal beliefs. I can be friends with an atheists as long as the atheists respects the rights of the individual and is free. However I cannot stand by while Richard Dawkins attacks religion and not offer a counter point to the horrors that come about when we have a godless and immoral society.

Rudy
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 966
Hello Rudy,

I watched all five parts of your youtube:
1of5 - Why I believe in God and still admire Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXC2U1ZZv4&feature=channel_page­

But I did not see a response to our prior exchange:

What I do value is your critiques that challenge my views and make me think deeper about the origin of man. I especially liked your critique about "would not an intelligent designer imply a super-intelligent designer.... and so on". This did make me pause and think through this to come to a satisfactory resolution in my own mind.
What was your resolution?
http://www.meetup.com...­
A former member
Post #: 11
Hello Old Toad,

I sincerely do thank you for your comments. I do learn more and I appreciate the ability to express my views even though most objectivists may not share them. The fact that we can have this discussion without you making me feel "mentally ill" as Richard Dawkins would is sincerely appreciated on my part.

To your point, I would offer that we live in a "causal" universe. In other words in the absence of free will and desire, event Z happened because of prior event Y, and event Y happened because of prior event X, and so on, all the way back to event A which represents the very beginning.

I think most atheists would agree with me that we do live in a "causal" universe in the absence of free will. I am not 100% sure of this but I am not sure what the alternative view points are on this topic. It seems to me that a "causal" universe is self-evident. Having stated this, I could ask an atheist how does he account for the primal cause. In other words, using logic and reason, how does the atheist account for the very first event that started off the entire series of events leading to the here and now.

When someone asks me "would not an intelligent designer imply a super-intelligent designer", I could turn the question around and ask them "how do you account for the primal cause of the universe".

The atheist may try to explain the issue by saying, "just because science has not figured it out yet, that does not indicate that there is a God and science can possibly one day explain everything". I do not agree with this line of thinking but I do follow your logic and I respect your beliefs. Of course, I can be friends with an atheist as long as we both have respect for the individual man and believe in a free society. I have many friends who are atheists.

The truth of the matter on how I resolved this issue in my own mind is the following:

I admire and respect logic and reason in the observable universe. For all those among us who work hard to learn and progress scientific discovery, I salute every one of them. However, I do not box myself in to believe that the observable universe is all there is to contemplate. If you saw my videos, my argument for this was the existence of free will, desire, consciousness or "our soul" and to a certain extent "intelligent design theory".

But when I attempt apply my logic and reason that I cherish to something which I believe is logically outside this observable universe for the reasons explained in my videos, it does not terribly disturb me that my logic and reason break down when contemplating something "outside the universe".

I simply don't know the origin of God nor do I expect to ever know that during this lifetime. I would offer that science may never know the primal cause of the universe.

Very best regards,
Rudy
A former member
Post #: 41


1of5 - Why I believe in God and still admire Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUXC2U1ZZv4&feature=channel_page­

Just a side note. If you take a good hard look at Rand, you will note that every single conclusion she comes to comes from one and only one axiom (with corollaries): A is A. Existence exists. All of her conclusions are based on metaphysics & epistemology that will clash the with supernatural and mystic at every turn.

I have a hunch (without really knowing you) that you may like some of Rand's conclusions but don't really care for how she reached them. [Danger: straw man ahead. Proceed with caution. ;)] That's sort of like really liking chocolate cake but despising flour. :)

But seriously.... I've read a handful of Dawkins. While I don't think Rand would agree with some of his humanist stances... I suspect she would be in agreement with his views on religion. I certainly respect your right to think otherwise... just take it as an FYI.

I also have to admit I haven't watched the youtube stuff... I am bandwidth impaired and video chews my monthly quotas.
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 969
Hello Rudy,

When someone asks me "would not an intelligent designer imply a super-intelligent designer", I could turn the question around and ask them "how do you account for the primal cause of the universe".
...
I However, I do not box myself in to believe that the observable universe is all there is to contemplate.

Objectivism answers the question this way:

"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, "This is John Galt Speaking"


Science cannot ever know "the primal cause of the universe," because it would require stepping into non-existence to prove existence.


This discussion reminds me of the following story:

A story is told of William James, the great psychologist and author of The Varieties of Religious Experience: In his travels, James encountered an Indian holy man from whom he hoped to learn more of the Hindu religion. James had read the creation myth of the Hindus, in which Brahma, the Creator, brings the world into being and then places it upon the backs of four
celestial elephants to support its corners. And so he inquired about the myth:

"I understand that you believe the world rests upon the backs of four white elephants. Is that correct?" "Indeed, this is so," replied the holy man.

"Good," James went on. "Now tell me, just what is it that stands beneath the great white elephants?"

"In each case," the sage replied, "there stands another great white elephant."

"And what is beneath that set of elephants?" James pressed on.

"Why, four more elephants."

"But tell me what stands under all of the elephants," James insisted.

"Dr. James, Dr. James," the Hindu replied patiently, "don't you understand? It's great white elephants, all the way down!"


Don't you understand? It's intelligent designers all the way up! wink

A former member
Post #: 42
"Dr. James, Dr. James," the Hindu replied patiently, "don't you understand? It's great white elephants, all the way down!"
I always heard the story with turtles. Elephants... they're just silly. Turtles make much more sense. :)
Old T.
OldToad
Group Organizer
Dallas, TX
Post #: 969
Hello Rudy,

I should make clear that I certainly respect your political right to hold different personal views. I also think that you do take ideas seriously, which I also respect.

But in response to this:
But when I attempt apply my logic and reason that I cherish to something which I believe is logically outside this observable universe for the reasons explained in my videos, it does not terribly disturb me that my logic and reason break down when contemplating something "outside the universe".


You cannot expect me to be respectful--as in granting as being rational--ideas where by your own admission "your logic and reason break down." Respectful of your interest in ideas, at that point I think you should reconsider.
A former member
Post #: 12
Hello Old Toad,

My beliefs burden me with the question of the origin of God. I grant you that. My reply is simply "I do not know."

Your beliefs and logic burden you with answering the question "What is the primal cause of the universe?" You have replied with a witty Ayn Rand saying to which I also subscribe. Existence exists. I understand that this is the foundation upon which everything you believe rests and I respect that.

But I think this answer "Existence exists" avoids answering the question and refuses to contemplate deeper into the matter.

Whereas I say that "I do not know" and I am OK with this. You reply that "It just is". I could claim your answer as well "It just is" to my dilemma but I choose to say "I do not know" instead. I believe we are both burdened with the same dilemma regarding the universe. I choose to admit that I am lacking in my reason to explain. You seem to draw a sense of contentment in saying "Existence exist" or "It just is". It is not my desire to rob you of that contentment but that answer does not satisfy myself.

When you say, "Science cannot ever know "the primal cause of the universe," because it would require stepping into non-existence to prove existence.", I would offer that it is not science , I am most concerned. It is MAN that contemplates these questions and science is his trusty sword of truth. However, I do not rely on science as my God.

You may not respect my belief in God. You may think it irrational. I think your beliefs are simply avoiding the question and taking a simplistic approach where man is only allowed to contemplate a limited portion of our existence.

I sincerely doubt that you or I will ever change in this regard.

In writing this, I feel as if I have entered the house of an admired and noble host giving a party and have performed some action which to me has no shame whatsoever but when I look around I feel as if I have done something which everyone expects from me a gesture of apology. I will not change nor apologize for my belief in God. I pray that I have the courage to never renounce this belief even at the risk of death.

Having stated this, it is not my desire to upset the party and I respectfully withdraw my membership from this board. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your efforts to espouse the writing of Ayn Rand. She was a very great woman indeed.

Rudy

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy