Please read the following very carefully. I have little time to say the many things I have to say. Therefore, what you read will tend to be very compact.

In a message dated April 26, 1998, HOWARD8984 writes:

This is true of anything that is subjective in nature, whether it is a moral issue or a metaphysical issue. However, I must point out that in spite of accusing atheists in general as 'subjective', Howard has not given a definition of what he means by 'subjective'. The evasion of ready definition is the mark of a presumptuous and cowardly man.

Subjectivism, in short, is the view that the source of reality, existence and nature, is a form of consciousness.

Religion, which posits a form of consciousness (e.g., 'god') as the 'creator' of all existence, is subjective in the exact sense of the term. By positing 'god', the religionist is stating that

1. existence is created (which science does not confirm), and
2. that the creator of existence is a form of consciousness.

The religionist then gives to this consciousness a broad array of personal qualities, and proceeds to 'define' this form of consciousness as a being that is beyond existence, beyond reality, beyond nature, therefore, 'it' is 'supernatural', and consequently beyond man's ability to perceive, verify, or understand.

Hence, the religionist's view of reality as the product of a form of consciousness, is subjective in nature, in doctrine, in intent. Religion, if embraced, can only foster the subjective view of reality. It is from the subjective view of reality that religion builds its initial metaphysical doctrines, positing man's body against his consciousness as if they were mortal enemies (the soul-body dichotomy, which is developed to an extensive degree in Christian doctrine, in spite of BKNewton's argument to the contrary), and from which religion informs its twisted and chaotic conception of epistemology - faith (mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence and against one's reasoning to the contrary; its method is faith), which must be backed up by the threat of force in order to 'convince' or compel obedience (i.e., "Believe, or go to hell!").

It is upon these two philosophical disciplines - subjectivism and mysticism - that the religionist builds his view of morality - the morality of sacrifice - which again appeals to the threat of force in order to 'command' obedience (euphemistically referred to as 'obligate' by Howard).

One of Howard's supreme presumptions, which abounds in practically every e-mail he's posted concerning the issue of morality, is that all atheists, me included, subscribe to a moral system that is subjective in nature and foundation. This is where Howard errs without excuse. Objectivist ethics is built on the objective view of reality (existence exists, A is A, the Law of Identity, the Law of Causality, reality as therefore consistent, man as a volitional being capable of rationality, etc.) and the epistemology of Reason (whose method is logic, which is the art of non-contradictory identification, as opposed to mysticism, whose method is faith).

Rather than identify and define the metaphysical, epistemological and moral alternatives that he would advocate as a religionist, Howard chooses to sit on the sidelines and nitpick every little trivial detail according to his baseless prejudices and gross presumptions, only occasionally asking a good question now and then that is worthy of genuine attention (and only if his ignorance is indeed equally genuine).

For instance, in his reluctance to accept a rational definition of atheism, Howard instead chooses to infer his own presumptions and prejudices and proceeds to give to it what does not inherently belong to it: a worldview.

In spite of the many well-justified and articulate protests by myself and others, Howard continues to build atheism per se into something that it is not: a philosophy all its own; and to insert into the mouths of others - without consent or supporting evidence - statements and doctrines that any of us may or may not accept, in spite of the very possible, even likely, facts to the contrary.

Such is the modus operandi of the subjectivist. The subjectivist resents objective reality, and therefore he resents objective identity - and therefore he proceeds to demolish its cognitive counterpart: definitions.

It is the religionist's rejection of objective reality, reason and man's nature as an independent, sovereign rational being that leaves only one philosophical alternative open to him. That alternative is the subjectivist/mystical/altruist axis, which vies against man the individual in its every doctrine, premise and commandment.

Howard proceeded in his post to illustrate what he felt were the failings of subjective morality (which belongs to the province of religion, by the way). Some of the items he mentioned were good points, however he missed the most important point of failing in any non-objective (i.e., subjective) system of morality. And that deficiency is: Subjective moral systems, no matter how laden with 'good intentions', fail to offer man the tools needed for his existence. In other words, subjective morality (whether religious in nature or otherwise), does not inform for man a code of values which guides his actions and his choices.

All subjective/religious systems of morality disable man the individual in the pursuit of his life and corollary interests. It does so by obligating man to others before he even has a chance to consider his own principles, values and interests in the shaping and living of his own life. Subjectivist morality (i.e., altruism, pietism, any form of sacrificial ethics), instead of giving man the tools he needs to guide and shape his life, subverts his effort, focus and values to the lives of others, leaving himself, the individual, completely in the cold. The morality of sacrifice never addresses the questions man has for conducting his own life, it merely teaches man how to sacrifice it. That is the primary failure of subjectivist moral systems that Howard failed to identify in his posts.

The reason Howard failed to do this is three-fold:

1. His view that reality finds its source in a cosmic, ruling consciousness (metaphysical subjectivism) infers that the task of man's life is not to live and enjoy himself, but to seek out this ruling consciousness, not in order to discover it for the purpose of understanding it, but simply to obey its whims and fiat desires;
2. His subjectivist view of reality prevents him from considering man as a sovereign being in his own right; and
3. His subjectivist view of man is that he is essentially depraved morally by virtue of his existence qua man, and therefore is 'obligated' to live his life in selfless service, either to 'god' or to others, or to both (i.e., abnegate himself) as a means of 'redeeming' himself to his subjective 'god'.

These three metaphysical assessments of man's nature prevent the religious view from discovering and developing the recognition that man has the moral right to exist for his own sake. It is upon this very right of man the individual to exist for his own sake that any rational, moral society is possible. Religion, by its nature as an enslaver of man, works against man the individual on every philosophical 'front' it possibly can. Those 'fronts' are: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. It is though the twisted, contorted view of reality and of man that the religionist takes his cue to embark on a grand scheme, known summarily as religion, designed to destroy man the individual.

The following is an example of Howard's persistent presumptuousness and 'gift for prejudice' that leads me to believe that he is incapable of rational discussion:

FACT: At no time have I ever advocated subjectivism, either in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics. Howard, however, assumes the 'privilege' to insert words into sources from which they never came.

FACT: I have neither presumed nor appealed to 'community norms' in any of my posts. This is an invention of Howard's, and as such it is another instance of Howard's persistent presumptuousness and 'privilege' to insert even more words into my mouth. He has no basis to do so.

FACT: I have never identified 'mob rule' as a standard in the political views I hold. On the contrary, I argue most explicitly for individualism, not for groupism or collectivism, or socialism, or any of its variants; I argue for a constitutionally limited republic, which is the only system of government that can - if properly designed without contradiction or compromise - recognize man's right to exist for his own sake, as an individual, no matter how envious or slanderous the 'mob' becomes. Man's right to exist is diametrically opposed to any ethical/political doctrine inferred in the Bible. Howard's statement that "Natural and inalienable rights are a myth" is indicative of this fact.

FACT: There is no such thing as "the atheist worldview," yet Howard insists on this absurd, baseless premise, in spite of several posts from various individuals in the Religion? forum contesting his prejudice, and teaching otherwise. I for one do not adhere to "the atheist worldview" - as one is not essentially possible, and because my worldview is not based upon my response to an otherwise irrelevant question whether or not I believe there exists a 'god' and whether or not I should accept as knowledge the claim that there is a 'god'. As I have stated numerous times before: My atheism is not a primary, but a consequence of my allegiance to reason. Howard fails to recognize this essential fact. The regularity of posts similar to the one above confesses his willful ignorance and inability to grasp this principle.

It is religion that infers all four of these positions which Howard accuses others of. It is religion that gives Howard the moral 'license' to ignore objective reality and invent it as he goes along. It is religion that encourages Howard to consider man the individual - me, you, and everyone - as moral convicts before either of us have the chance to argue in our own defense, to hold each of us guilty until proven innocent, which is only possible by confessing belief (obedience, conformity, self-sacrifice) in the supernatural scarecrow the religionists have erected before us.

I challenge Howard - and any other religionist - to put forth his doctrine in positive terms, and argue for his belief - if he can, if he dare - instead of choosing the negative at all times. Anyone can be a critic, but only an individual can profess expertise.

May the best man rise to the occasion.

May you get what you deserve.

Tindrbox

_________________________________