SOLO Jesus: Batting for the other team

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sun, 2011-08-21 21:35

“I regard [homosexuality] as immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting.”

— Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1971

“Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

— Jesus Christ, Mark 7:14-15


( categories: )

George Carlin

Richard Goode's picture

Carlin debates God and prayer.

We're all fucked. It helps to remember that.

Hinom

Marcus's picture

"Hell or gehenna is actually a place near Jerusalem ( gay Hinom or valley of Hinom)."

They said that Hinom was the city waste-dump, rather than an actual "hell".

"Satan" means someone who inhibits, and although the child of God - it is a collaboration, not a war between himself and God.

Leonid...

Marcus's picture

...it would be good to get your take on this documentary.

It is done by a comedian who approaches it seriously, but with humour as he had a stage show in which he played the role of Satan.

I will put it up when it comes on YouTube.

Richard: Re: Satan

Leonid's picture

" Unless you're Leonid"

Richard, the ignorance is not a virtue and sarcasm is not a proof.

Satan mentioned in the Bible in the book of Job. He referred as one of God's sons. He also referred as Lucifer (carrier of light) and Velsevul (Baal zvuv el-god of flies). Satan in Hebrew means " deviant". Maybe this is the origin of the legend of the fallen angel. Hell or gehenna is actually a place near Jerusalem ( gay Hinom or valley of Hinom). It was formerly the place where the idolatrous Jews burned their children alive as a sacrifice to Moloch and Baal. A particular part of the valley was called Tophet, the "fire-stove" or furnace, where the children were burned. There is absolutely no connection in the Bible between hell and Satan, except a sick imagination of religionists.

http://www.religioustolerance....
http://brittgillette.com/WordP...

Oral knowledge means legends

Leonid's picture

Oral knowledge means legends and assertion is not knowledge. There is an oral knowledge about alien visitors from Sirius B. Should we take it as knowledge too?

Deliver us from the evil one

Richard Goode's picture

It turns out that modern ideas about Satan being a fallen angel who reigns over hell are quite new and cannot be found in the bible.

Unless you're Leonid, of course. He has an unbiased mind and can always find a quote in the Bible to justify just about anything. Leonid can interpret any scripture in any way he pleases, and adjust it to any political condition. Apparently, it's all in aid of controlling his herd of (un)believers, the leo-Niddites.

I watched a BBC documentary...

Marcus's picture

...last night about Satan.

It was quite interesting.

It turns out that modern ideas about Satan being a fallen angel who reigns over hell are quite new and cannot be found in the bible.

His appearance with horns, tail and goat hooves is not even grounded in Christianity - but is borrowed from the Egyptians and the ancient Greeks.

Lucifer (the bringer of light) is not even the Devil in the bible, but a Persian King.

Other sources

Burnsy's picture

of knowledge include oral knowledge and the assertions made by pre-scripture philosophers. I have also yet to see the bible (including it's many varied editions) claim that is somehow the sole source of knowledge of God.

"So "There are no other

Leonid's picture

"So "There are no other source of knowledge about God, but scriptures"? Really???"

Really!!!. If you know about some other sources, please share this knowledge with us.

Homosexuality

seymourblogger's picture

“I regard [homosexuality] as immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting.”

Well I guess Rand didn't go for anal eroticism.

Branden could have made her his sex slave by doing that.

Very intense.

Ah gender

seymourblogger's picture

Gender is a social construct - Judith Butler.

Someone could make a brilliant career out of gender ambiguity in the novels of Ayn Rand. See Judith Butler if you want to fight with me about this.

Peter Keating with his small pursed pretty mouth. Does Peter have a peter?

Roark has orange hair that sticks up and waves. Twilight's Edward Cullen has bronze hair that sticks up and waves. Robert Pattinson has "sex" hair.

Dominique has a blonde helmet of hair, smooth, polished, metal looking. Does anyone really want me to go on with Rand herself.

And Frank, the elephant in the room that nobody dares to mention. Read Branden's first description of him in Judgement Day. Very accurate for that 19 year old boy.

And Rand who really liked certain women. Garbo. Monroe.

Are you sure you want to go there?

There are no referents in reality Lindsay

seymourblogger's picture

Language only refers to language in spite of what Rand said or thought. In simulated reality which most of us have our feet in, all is "floating signs".

Am I stupid enough to read this? Some of it

seymourblogger's picture

I can't believe you have nothing to do but harangue about this old old argument. Are you all that bored? I guess I'm bored enough to reply tho.

Crutch for close minded people

seymourblogger's picture

How about Rand and Objectivism the way the dogma goes.

You mean it's turtles all the way down?

seymourblogger's picture

Yeh.

I'll tell ya how

seymourblogger's picture

Rand saying to Branden that if she were in her 80's , in a wheelchair, then as his highest value he would have sexual desire for her.

Hmmmmm. This statement is based on reason. She even believed it. You can believe something when there is no basis of reality to support it. Rand did, so so can you.

Baudrillard: Children know they are children but they don't believe it. So they play a double game.

Your name calling is a supposedly - I said supposedly intellectual site - would be annoying if I weren't laughing.

gregster

Burnsy's picture

I can't help but wonder if you've even bothered to read the guidelines for posting to this site. If you do so, you'll see that you and me both are just as entitled to post as each other. If that makes you a troll then so be it. Moreover if I happen to bring to your attention, your very own self evident displays of presumptive jumping to conclusions ignorance then again so be it.

Gregster

Burnsy's picture

Yes Gregster I've not taken to heart your references to me. Moreover I assume you're the sort of person who can take it as well as give it.

Burnsy

gregster's picture

I'm not serious about your head in your oven, and don't take this as an apology, but your contribution doesn't appear to be genuine. But if it is, it's damn near incoherent. You can call me any term you wish, but you remain willfully ignorant and that is the greatest depth of immorality. You dismissed my answer here (probably through habitual evasion), and by that, outed yourself as little more than a troll.

the Gospel according to Gregster

Burnsy's picture

Sorry grunster I can't find an oven big enough. But thanks anyway. Though I know you'll fit neatly into one. With a bit of baking soda and yeast (and a big dollop of faith) you might be able to be cured of your small man syndrome. One thing I do know you won't need to be cured of however, is Hemorrhoids, because I have very good reason to have faith in my assertion that you already qualify as a perfect asshole (however small it may be).

atheism

Brant Gaede's picture

To understand atheism one must understand the actual definition of the word. Failure to do so results in two kinds of atheists. One is the type that makes it a religion, like M. M. O'Hair did. This is the militant type of various and innumerable stripes. The other is the passive type, which conforms to the definition of theism plus that preceding "a". The word "atheist" itself has been too corrupted by changing and popular usage, but if you think of yourself as one and present yourself as one it is to that you are conforming or you have to come with a paragraph, as I am doing here, explaining what you are really about.

So I stopped calling myself an atheist--a very ugly word to me, BTW. I'm a pantheist. I equate "God" with reality itself and all aspects of reality are aspects of God. But this God is not a Supreme Being I worship but the supreme thing I thoroughly respect.

What is interesting about this "thing," however, is so far we--I--can experience it only through its particular parts. The totality is beyond my comprehension for there is way too much of it. While the "thing" is beyond my reach, as such, so is God as a Supreme Being to believers in Him, unless, maybe, you are a Joan of Arc. The genius of Christianity is Jesus Christ, the buffer and grace and human face and intermediary of God as represented by the New Testament.

As a pantheist I don't need Jesus, I just need humility, science and my humanity.

--Brant

Burnsy (un-ovened)

gregster's picture

On the whole; while the Christian world is spreading their faith message (supported by reason) with love and peace

Burnsy, can you tell me how faith can be supported by reason?

Let me save you the trouble. It can't.

And you will always remain an asshole.

Try the oven son.

Carlin debates God...

Marcus's picture

...and prayer.

person or human

Burnsy's picture

Leonid is your "he" as in "all he needs.." you're referring to, a person or a human being? This is because it seems as though there are some great lengths some onliners go to, to try and clearly define some semantic differences.


So "There are no other source of knowledge about God, but scriptures"Really???


Moreover all I need to believe in atheism, is faith.


Such faith (in atheism) is especially easy to resort to, if I certainly chose to ignore or lazily fail to engage my reasoning or perception faculties.


On the whole; while the Christian world is spreading their faith message (supported by reason) with love and peace, it seems the atheists have to conjure their various "isms" and vehemently defend them. Such atheists are scurrying around shooting arrows at the faults of Christians while at the same time wishing the world will overlook the ridiculous lengths these atheistic "isms" employ (e.g redefining the true meaning of words) in order to ignore reality.

Richard

Leonid's picture

For example a concept of God as a Creator of everything which exist. To do so God has to exist outside of existence which is contradiction in terms. Besides, such a concept leads to infinite regress. If existence requires creation and God exists, then he is part of existence and also requires a creator and so ad infinitum. Consider the fact that God is undefinable in principle-to define means to put limits, boundaries and God supposes to be limitless. Therefore God exists without boundaries, without identity as nothing in particular. However God with identity, limits and boundaries is no God, just an entity, one among many. In either case God doesn't belong to reality. Consider other attributes which usually ascribed to God-omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternity-all these attributes are self-contradictory. Consider the fact that we never can arrive to the concept of God by looking at reality-we have to be told about God's existence. There are no other source of knowledge about God, but scriptures. Finally, consider the fact that God's hypothesis has no explanatory power-it is a substitution of one unknown by another. As you said "God moves in a mysterious ways".

But most importantly, to believe in God, one even doesn't need reality, perception or reason.

All he needs is faith.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Because this mental construct contradicts everything we know about reality.

Can you give me a specific example of that?

Burnsy

Leonid's picture

"Atheism serves as a convenient crutch for many of these close minded people."

Can you just once for a change substantiate your wishy washy statement?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"I ask you, why (or, perhaps, how) doesn't the 'God' mental construct pertain to reality?"

Because this mental construct contradicts everything we know about reality.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Mental construct is always there-be it God or unicorn. The meaning of the expression “there is no God" is that such a construct doesn't pertain to reality.

I ask you, why (or, perhaps, how) doesn't the 'God' mental construct pertain to reality? Could it be because the 'God' mental construct is a description and nothing (according to you) fits the description?

Isn’t it an influence of your beloved pot?

God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.

Well

Brant Gaede's picture

Well, I used to be an atheist. Now I'm a pantheist. It's no longer the Supreme Being--that was why I was an atheist--it's the Supreme Thing thing. I gotta respect that.

--Brant

“In reality there is no such a thing as God. Says Leonid

Burnsy's picture

Whenever I've queried any atheist to justify why their own belief or FAITH in atheism is more moral, reasoned or rational than theism all I ever get from them is some wishy washy close minded answer based on a conveniently contrived mental construct itself.

For such atheists it's indeed very convenient to dismiss the notion of a Christian God.
This is especially so when what he stands for (as supposedly interpreted by the less than all knowing mind) does not tidily dovetail in with what they would like to believe to be true.

For many atheists (e.g those who'd prefer to "live" their cosy, close minded, I'm all-right thanks very much, lives) Atheism is certainly one of the easiest default bastions for those looking for a cosy cop-out from being required to look at how they themselves measure up.
Atheism serves as a convenient crutch for many of these close minded people.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"If the word 'God' refers to a mental construct, then to say that there is no God is to say there is no such mental construct."

Mental construct is always there-be it God or unicorn. The meaning of the expression “there is no God" is that such a construct doesn't pertain to reality. If one wants to be precise, he should say “In reality there is no such a thing as God. It is your mental construct, a fantasy or delusion, in other words-meaningless nonsense like Godzilla or leprechaun. What make me to wonder: why even small children seldom believe in Santa Claus and such a big and educated man like yourself believes in God. Isn’t it an influence of your beloved pot?

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Such a statement would be meaningless if referred to God in the metaphysical sense, as a part of existence. But usually atheists refer to "God" as a mental construct. The sentence means that such a construct doesn't pertain to reality.

If the word 'God' refers to a mental construct, then to say that there is no God is to say there is no such mental construct.

So atheists do spout meaningless nonsense. (But we already knew that.)

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

... what approbation do you ascribe to E=mc2 and A is A?

Einstein? A genius. The second greatest Jew who ever lived.

Rand? Also a genius, indubitably, and also Jewish. Somewhere in the top 100.

I'd really like to know your opinion on the Herman Cain campaign ad I posted here.

Atheism

Leonid's picture

"If the statement 'There is God' is neither true nor false, but meaningless, then, by the same token, the statement 'There is no God' is also meaningless and anyone who professes atheism is spouting meaningless nonsense."

You are quite right. Such a statement would be meaningless if referred to God in the metaphysical sense, as a part of existence. But usually atheists refer to "God" as a mental construct. The sentence means that such a construct doesn't pertain to reality. So Atheist don't spout meaningless nonsense, but highlight that the concept of God is meaningless nonsense.

If that's genius, Goode

Jameson's picture

... what approbation do you ascribe to E=mc2 and A is A?

Glenn

Richard Goode's picture

Of course, He does! God listens to everything.

But I wonder what He makes of the lyrics?

I keep the Bible in a pool of blood, so that none of its lies can affect me.

(If that isn't genius, what the hell is?)

Stumbled across this today...

Jameson's picture

Does "Gobby" exist?

Richard Goode's picture

what are the referents in reality of the concept "Gobby"?

Truly I tell you, I have no idea what you mean by 'concept'. Does "Gobby" exist? That's the burning question.

Someone here is claiming that the fossil record has the same cognitive status as the bullshit in the gospels, even as the former is there for us all to see and examine, while nothing in the latter has anything close to conclusive corroboration of any kind whatsoever ... and most of the time is self-evidently cretinous and contradictory.

Someone here is trying to impute to Ayn Rand the view that any old word one makes up must represent something real simply because it is a word. Erm ... "There are such things as invalid concepts, i.e., words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism—or words without specific definitions, without referents, which can mean anything to anyone, such as modern 'anti-concepts.'"

Someone here will do anything to deflect attention away from his failure and morbid inabilty to point to the referents of the invalid concept "Gobby."

What have we here? We have a detailed description. With this description in mind, we can ask, is there someone here who (uniquely) fits the description? No one that I can see.

What's the difference between God and Nessie? Wikipedia lists ten separate searches for the monster. On each occasion, the searchers knew what they were looking for.

In 2003, the BBC sponsored a full search of the Loch using 600 separate sonar beams and satellite tracking. The search had enough resolution to pick up a small buoy. No animal of any substantial size was found whatsoever and despite high hopes, the scientists involved in the expedition admitted that this essentially proved the Loch Ness monster was only a myth.

The Loch Ness Monster is an animal of substantial size living in Loch Ness. The 2003 BBC search found nothing that fitted that description. It's worth noting, however, that the £1 million Operation Deep Scan (1987) revealed "a large moving object near Urquhart Bay at a depth of 600 feet (180 m)". You get what you pay for.

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Its existence is postulated to resolve inconsistencies in theoretical physics. Does the Higgs boson exist? Has it been discovered? Not yet, according to Wikipedia, but searches are ongoing at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Do physicists know what they're looking for? Let's hope so, because with a budget of $9 billion the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built.

The historical Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. Was there someone who (uniquely) fitted that description? In all probability, yes.

What about "Gobby" the Lonely Goblin? Is there anything that fits the description? I sincerely hope not. But I'm not about to conduct a search for the monster. I don't have the budget.

Objectivism is a foreign country

Richard Goode's picture

Objectivism is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

Epic triumph

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's no surprise to me that corrupt modern logic texts tout the views Baade quotes. He forgot Robert Nola: "Logic has nothing to do with reality." To be failed by such fuckwits constitutes epic triumph in my book.

I'm unclear whether Baade is saying Aristotle would be turning in his grave at my views or the fuckwits', but it would assuredly be the latter in fact.

But Baade digresses, as usual. I challenge him again: what are the referents in reality of the concept "Gobby"?

Epic fail

Richard Goode's picture

Anyone with a semblance of reason can see that any argument of this form is entirely valid if Y is bullshit.

Epic fail.

Wikipedia (Argument)says

The validity of an argument depends, however, not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusions, but solely on whether or not the argument has a valid logical form.

Wikipedia (Logic) says

The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Validity and Soundness) says

Whether or not the premises of an argument are true depends on their specific content. However... the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form.

Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction says

understand that the validity of an argument does not depend on whether the premises and conclusion are actually true

Modern Logic: A Text in Elementary Symbolic Logic says

the property of an argument which determines whether it is valid or invalid has nothing to do with its topic or with whether its premises and conclusion are actually true or false

Aristotle, if he were alive today, would be turning in his grave.

Worse than pathetic

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Baade, PhD, having thankfully given up on trying to impute to Ayn Rand a view she didn't hold, now proffers:

****************

The only evidence for the existence of X is Y, therefore the existence of X is a myth, a legend, a story.

Got it? Same logical form of argument, not same cognitive status of evidence. Anyone with a semblance of reason can see that any argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the stated conclusion does not follow from the stated premise(Drunk.

*******************

Anyone with a semblance of reason can see that any argument of this form is entirely valid if Y is bullshit. As the gospels are bullshit—unlike the fossil records.

Baade notwithstanding, there is the not-negligible matter of content to be considered. Here's something that imitates the form of logic:

All PhDs are cretins.
Baade is a PhD.
Therefore, Baade is a cretin.

By his own lights, Baade would have to agree with this, since it follows the form of logic. It even has a great deal of empirical evidence in its favour, much of it on display right here. But actually, ultimately, the content of the first premise doesn't stack up in reality, Baade again notwithstanding.

But Baade digresses, as usual. I challenge him again: what are the referents in reality of the concept "Gobby"?

Good Galt!

Richard Goode's picture

Someone here is claiming that the fossil record has the same cognitive status as the bullshit in the gospels

How dare they?! Or do they? Someone who isn't me. What I'm claiming is that this argument, which mentions the New Testament

There is no extra-biblical evidence that such a person ever existed, therefore the existence of the historical Jesus is a myth.

has the same logical form as this argument, which mentions the fossil record.

There is no evidence outside the fossil record that dinosaurs ever existed, therefore the existence of such creatures is a myth, a legend, a story.

More generally, these arguments are of the form

The only evidence for the existence of X is Y, therefore the existence of X is a myth, a legend, a story.

Got it? Same logical form of argument, not same cognitive status of evidence. Anyone with a semblance of reason can see that any argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the stated conclusion does not follow from the stated premise(s).

The presupposition or unstated premise in Leonid's original argument is that what evidence we do have (in this case, the canonical Gospels) is in some way insufficient to make a case for the existence of Jesus as a real historical figure. But there's an insuperable problem with this line of reasoning. An insufficiency of evidence for the existence of something is not sufficient evidence of its non-existence.

There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

Dear Gobby!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Someone here is claiming that the fossil record has the same cognitive status as the bullshit in the gospels, even as the former is there for us all to see and examine, while nothing in the latter has anything close to conclusive corroboration of any kind whatsoever ... and most of the time is self-evidently cretinous and contradictory.

Someone here is trying to impute to Ayn Rand the view that any old word one makes up must represent something real simply because it is a word. Erm ... "There are such things as invalid concepts, i.e., words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism—or words without specific definitions, without referents, which can mean anything to anyone, such as modern 'anti-concepts.'"

Someone here will do anything to deflect attention away from his failure and morbid inabilty to point to the referents of the invalid concept "Gobby."

I expect it will turn out to be the same reality-evading someone who insists that this Gobby is, and has to be, the source of morality, even though there's no evidence for such an entity as Gobby; that the reality of what human beings are and what they need is not an adequate source or validation of morality; that morality would exist even if human beings didn't; that the Jeezy who licked his lips at the prospect of saying to dissenters, "Depart from me ye cursed into the everlasting fire ..." never spoke of a place of eternal punishment; that Slayer are uplifting; that Rand's epistemology is "retarded" even though he's never read it. The same someone with ADS (Ayn Derangement Syndrome) who is one the best exhibits ever in Ayn's case that intrinsicism and subjectivism are, ultimately, one and the same.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

You're just not getting it.

Here's a riddle for you: What's the difference between God and Nessie?

"Was Rand an athiest"?

Kasper's picture

No. She was a devout Christian, didn't you know! Hahahahaha

Atheism

Richard Goode's picture

the statement " There is God" doesn't pertain to reality and thus not true, nor false-it is meaningless.

If the statement 'There is God' is neither true nor false, but meaningless, then, by the same token, the statement 'There is no God' is also meaningless and anyone who professes atheism is spouting meaningless nonsense.

That's why I asked if you're an atheist.

"Are you an atheist?"- Why you suddenly ask?

Was Rand an atheist?

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

"The Jesus I'm referring to..."

The description I gave was that of the historical Jesus. That's the Jesus I'm referring to.

"The Jesus I'm referring to..." You refer to a myth, a legend, a story. There is no extra-biblical evidence that such a person ever existed.

There is no extra-biblical evidence that such a person ever existed, therefore the existence of the historical Jesus is a myth. That's your argument, and it's invalid! In logic, 'invalid' means that the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s). To see why your argument is invalid, consider the following argument which has the same logical form.

There is no evidence outside the fossil record that dinosaurs ever existed, therefore the existence of such creatures is a myth, a legend, a story.

Even the inimitable Christopher Hitchens argues, convincingly, that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Leonid

Kasper's picture

Not only is it not Ayn's fault, quite the contrary, it is to her merit that she took the time to deal with such a meaningless pile of piffle. She entertained "god" as a concept in order to demonstrate that "god" is nothing but an abstraction with no referents: i.e., imagination.

Why Goode doesn't get this I don't know. She is in total agreement that there is no such thing as a "God".. It is her point, exactly. Wasn't it Aristotle who said that the mark of intelligence is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it?

An Additional note:

The most amusing irony is witnessing the spectacle of Goode labelling Rand's epistemology as "retarded" whilst at the same time admitting to having never read ITOE. If that isn't retarded then I don't know what is!

Addition 2: Goode says that I've just proved Rand's epistemology as being faulty by admitting that the "god" idea doesn't fall into 2 of her epistemology statements. Goode would be correct if God did exist but her epistemology was either too limited or simply unable to identify it. Is Goode saying that God does infact exist and that Rand's epistemology is too rudimentary to grasp this? Where then is Goode's case for God's existence?

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"The Jesus I'm referring to..."

You refer to a myth, a legend, a story. There is no extra-biblical evidence that such a person ever existed. Flavius Josephus briefly mentioned Jesus but:

" Currently, the most widely held scholarly opinion[clarification needed] is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.[3][4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

See also http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/jose...

"Are you an atheist?"- Why you suddenly ask? Before you called me a militant atheist.

Kasper is right-God designates a concept of non-entity, a fantasy which doesn't pertain to reality. Therefore it cannot be analyzed by proper epistemic tools. Epistemology answers a question-how do you know what is true and what is false when reality is a standard. ( Correspondence theory of truth). However, the statement " There is God" doesn't pertain to reality and thus not true, nor false-it is meaningless. And this is hardly Ayn Rand's fault.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

The fault isn't her epistemology.

Her epistemology is faulty. You just proved it!

Yes I'm saying the G word is neither of the above.

According to Objectivist epistemology, the G word has to be one or the other. According to you, it is neither one nor the other!

I would say she is talking about concepts of legitimacy which we know God is not.

I would say she is talking about God only knows what.

With the exception of proper names, every word we use is a concept

Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept

Even if Objectivist epistemology won gold at the Special Olympics, it would still be retarded.

Goode

Kasper's picture

I hear you well.

Yes I'm saying the G word is neither of the above. I would say she is talking about concepts of legitimacy which we know God is not. The idea of God is an anti-concept precisely due to its failure to fulfill those criteria and that is exactly why the concept is an illegitimate one. There are no concretes concerning god. God's identity is, no identity. He is - not.

The fault isn't her epistemology. The fault is in those who still can't see what her epistemology clearly succeeds in pointing out - that your goblin is a figment of your imagination.

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Rand says

Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind.

Proper names are used in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition.

So, according to Objectivist epistemology, the G word is either

(1) a proper name, used in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition, or

(2) a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind.

Do you hear me? According to Objectivist epistemology, the G word has to be one or the other.

The G word denotes a construct of the imagination.

Are you saying that the G word is neither of the above?

Goode

Kasper's picture

" So, does the the G word denote an integration of perceptual referents? Or does the G word identify and include a particular entity or entities in a conceptual method of cognition? Or neither?"

The G word denotes a construct of the imagination.

The "concept" god is an imaginary construct built and projected from human beings. The God idea (let's use Christianities) despite its wide range acceptance is just an idea. This is demonstrable by the clear absence of any concrete that directly points towards this idea's validity.

My understanding is that traditionally the Christian idea of God is an all powerful/knowledgeable creative being that exists exterior to the laws of the universe which he himself has created. Although he can transcend he isn't confined to the rules he sets for nature or man.

You said it, man

Richard Goode's picture

Same God? On the face of it, no... The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not the same person.

[Is Jesus Jeezy..?] Yes... his one and only Son

Me: Many Gods, one Jesus.

Obviously, Jesus existed, many of them.

My understanding that NT God is OT God... NT constantly refers to OT, quotes it and makes to understand that God-Father is OT God. Quran does the same... "Same God?"-some God, different times... The same God.

Leonid: One God, many Jesuses.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

since there were many people named "Jesus" we don't know to which particular entity this name refers.

The Jesus I'm referring to is the 1st century Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Are you an atheist?

Kasper

Richard Goode's picture

Are we to take it that you finally have read her book on epistemology?

When Jesus said, "Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them," he was referring to what goes into the body, not what goes into the mind.

I haven't read ITOE.

Goode

Kasper's picture

"If Rand....spared us her retarded Objectivist epistemology"

Are we to take it that you finally have read her book on epistemology?

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

Obviously, Jesus existed, many of them. Jesus was a common Jewish name. To ask as you do " Did Jesus exist" is like to ask " do Smith, Peter or Richard exist?" Proper name simply designates a person or a unique entity, as distinguished from a common noun, which represents a class of entities . However, since there were many people named "Jesus" we don't know to which particular entity this name refers. For what we know "Jesus" also could be a collective name of the few real people or a name of mythical person like king Artur or bald king of France to whom the confused Russell's analysis refers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

In any case all this has nothing to do with the definite description.

Did Jesus exist?

Richard Goode's picture

Did Jesus exist?

For the non-retarded, this is a straightforward question, whose answer straightforwardly depends on a simple historical matter of fact.

For Objectivists, however, this is either a meaningless question or a question whose answer is self-evidently yes. That's because, according to Objectivist epistemology, a proper name (and 'Jesus' is a proper name) is used "in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition." Now, either the name 'Jesus' succeeds in identifying a particular entity (in which case the answer to the question is, self-evidently, yes) or the name 'Jesus' fails to identify a particular entity (in which case it's unclear what is being asked).

If Rand had bothered to read Russell's 1905 paper On Denoting she might have realised that sometimes a proper name is a disguised definite description and spared us her retarded Objectivist epistemology.

Rand's description of God is "that which no human mind can know". Peikoff's description of God is "the Judeo-Christian [description] of God... as traditionally defined". Perigo's description of God is Gobby the Lonely Goblin. What's yours?

By the way, according to Wikipedia

The majority of biblical scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

The G word

Richard Goode's picture

I have no concept of God. Concepts are integrations of perceptual referents. Referents that are real.

No concept of what? Rand says

Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind... Proper names are used in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition.

So, does the the G word denote an integration of perceptual referents? Or does the G word identify and include a particular entity or entities in a conceptual method of cognition? Or neither?

Epistemological Retardation

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Perigo's concept of God is Gobby the Lonely Goblin. What's yours?

I have no concept of God. Concepts are integrations of perceptual referents. Referents that are real. I still await elucidation of the referents that comprise the concept "God." Baade himself acknowledges there are no such referents. And neither he nor any other Goblian has been able to show—or has even attempted to show—my "lonely goblin" scenario to be anything other than a totally accurate representation of their bullshit.

Their utter, utter mind/reality-negating bullshit.

Dr No Goode

gregster's picture

There is no concept for that which you name God. It is an invalid concept. It is supernatural and therefore is an impossibility and beyond cognition.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

I'll take that then to be the joke answer for the joke (invalid) concept [of God]

You're an atheist. You deny the existence of God. Who or what is this "God" whose existence you deny?

Rand's concept of God is "that which no human mind can know". Peikoff's concept of God is "the Judeo-Christian concept of God... as traditionally defined". Perigo's concept of God is Gobby the Lonely Goblin. What's yours?

I'll take that then

gregster's picture

to be the joke answer for the joke (invalid) concept Riddler (but thanks for pointing to a great letter from Valliant). I think you pretend that Goblinism stuff just to get your leg over.

Does man need a concept of

Richard Wiig's picture

Does man need a concept of uganiatory hestionisational condisments? That's actually the first question to ask. Once you've answered that, only then can you get down to the nitty gritty of deciding what exactly it is.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

Who or what is this "God"?

You're an atheist. Who or what is this "God" you don't believe in?

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific concept of God, is: Why does man need a concept of God?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular concept of God should man accept? The first question is: Does man need a concept of God at all—and why?

John 1:1

Richard Goode's picture

Who or what is this "God"?

In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.

Please explain for me

gregster's picture

Who or what is this "God," who has one Son as told by some guy John, and what is his importance?

Rubbish dumps

Richard Goode's picture

If so, is it the same Jeezy who promised eternal torture for Gobby's deniers?

Jesus never promised this.

I've posted John 3:16 as a separate comment. Wikipedia says that John 3:16

is one of the most widely quoted verses from the Christian Bible, and has been called the most famous Bible verse. It has also been called the "Gospel in a nutshell" because it is considered a summary of the central dogma of traditional Christianity

Note that, according to John 3:16, you have two options. You can either perish, or have eternal life. (This is conditional immortality.) There's no mention of eternal torture. The doctrine of hell is inconsistent with Christianity's central dogma.

Jesus never mentions hell. He occasionally mentions Hades (or Sheol) and regularly mentions Gehenna. (Both terms are mistranslated as hell in the King James Version of the Bible.) Gehenna was a rubbish dump in the Valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. Let's take a couple of verses from the Sermon on the Mount, replacing references to hell with the names of local rubbish dumps.

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be dumped at the Otaihanga Resource Recovery Facility. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be dropped off at the Seaview Recycle and Transfer Station.

It's still enough to put the fear of God into little children.

John 3:16

Richard Goode's picture

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Standing up for Jesus (and Rand)

Richard Goode's picture

What is SOLO Jesus? Is it a sub-set of SOLO?

SOLO Jesus is a forum missing on SOLO. It was first mooted here.

Is Jesus Jeezy, about the duration of whose existence, and about whose relationship with Gobby, Goblians have demonstrated embarrassing confusion right here?

Yes.

Is it the same Jeezy in whose name St Paul proclaimed that homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Ay, there's the rub. Over the centuries, a lot of people have said and done a lot of things in Christ's name that Christ himself never would have said or done. ("Lies in the name of God.") Isn't it unjust to blame Jesus for what Paul or anyone else has said or done "in his name"? Why is it that people seem to want Jesus to take the rap for the sins of the whole world? Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility?

If so, what exactly is the point of counterpointing Jeezy's views against Ayn's? The latter at least upheld the right of gays to be gay without state interference. Most Goblians haven't got even to that point.

Jesus is worshipped by conservative Christians who wave placards telling us that "God hates fags". Rand is worshipped by modern libertarians who themselves are openly gay. Thus, it is all too easy to assume that Rand is pro-gay and Jesus is anti-gay. The point of my counterpoint was prophylactic. In fact, it is Rand who is anti-gay, and Jesus, well, as far as we know he never directly addressed the topic.

I'm not defending Christianity. I'm standing up for Jesus. While I'm at it, I might as well stand up for Rand. Rand thought that homosexuality was immoral and disgusting and yet, as you pointed out, she upheld the right of gays to be gay without state interference. That she did so shows Rand to be a true freedom fighter, of the sort Mencken had in mind when he said,

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Curious ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What is SOLO Jesus?

Is it a sub-set of SOLO? If so, I'm wondering why I know nothing about it.

Is Jesus Jeezy, about the duration of whose existence, and about whose relationship with Gobby, Goblians have demonstrated embarrassing confusion right here? If so, is it the same Jeezy who promised eternal torture for Gobby's deniers?

Is it the same Jeezy in whose name St Paul proclaimed that homosexuals cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If so, what exactly is the point of counterpointing Jeezy's views against Ayn's? The latter at least upheld the right of gays to be gay without state interference. Most Goblians haven't got even to that point.

Is Gobby the same Gobby who said men who lie with men as with women should be put to death?

Is Gobby the same Gobby for whose existence Baade acknowledged there is no evidence ... even as he asserted that Gobby is the source of morality?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.