In a message dated May 23, 1998 Osareya writes:

Precisely. Osareya is correct. Basically (and I’ve covered this before, and so has AirwaveBoy to a great degree), it is the Law of Identity that ‘gives’ something the property of being true. The Law of Identity, which is the first law of nature, is a natural corollary to the fact of existence. If something is said to exist, then necessarily that thing that exists is something, i.e., it possesses identity. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Find any object that exists, and it has identity. This identity is its ‘truth’.

The problem I have in this regard with the theist is this notion that truth requires authority. Often the theist will ask "What is the final authority for truth in an atheistic universe?" which naturally suggests that the theist cannot consider truth as a fact of reality, but attribute the standard of truth (which is the recognition of reality) to some living entity (in the theist’s mind, ‘god’). This idea of ‘god’ is built into the theist’s definition of ‘truth’, as we saw with BK’s post.

Quite frankly, however, I ask: IF SOMETHING IS TRUE, WHY DOES IT NEED AN AUTHORITY???? Just as I asked of BK’s definition of ‘knowledge’: "If something is TRUE, why does it need to be ‘justified’?

Regarding propositions, all one need ask, is: Is it true? Yes or no? Why or why not? And move on with it. It is not necessary ever to consult with an ‘authority’ in the case of the truth of a statement (if it’s true, no authority can change that fact), nor does anyone need to wait around and fill out paperwork in order to get a fact ‘justified’ into truth, as if epistemology were some large bureaucracy (good heavens! I’m glad THAT’s not the case!).

I would also like to point out that atheism per se has no obligation to inform the natural sciences, and that Howard’s ploy here is nothing more than a variation of the STRAW MAN fallacy known as allegation of the neglected onus. He’s attempting to shift a burden onto atheism which does not exist (remember: atheism is a LACK OF GOD-BELIEF, nothing more), and then condemns atheism for not ‘coming up with the answers’, thereby implying that ‘atheism is naturally stumped because it has forsaken God’ or some silly garbage like that. Doesn’t wash. Complete fallacy here.

I would also like to point out the FACT that the Bible does not have ANY CLUE as to how percepts ‘give rise’ to ideas. Howard and the other theist gents have been invited to explain how the Bible addresses concept-formation. Question #4 in my post titled JUST WHAT IS CHRISTIAN EPISTEMOLOGY? dated May 16, reads as follows:

Apparently the Christians in this forum have blanked out, for here it is over eight days later, and there’s been NO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, however Howard here is picking on Osareya and other atheists for having "no clue as to how a mere sensory input could give rise to an ‘idea’, much less produce an act of decision." Howard’s trying to make atheism look bad for something his own beloved, primitive Bible cannot explain.

But wait. There are atheists who HAVE FAR MORE CLUE than Howard apparently does about concept-formation. I refer the reader to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand to learn more about this essential epistemological study. It seems that the Bible’s cavalier disregard for concepts, concept-formation and definitions is rather noteworthy, especially when the going gets tough. For, as Howard once said: "The Bible only sets the parameters, not the specifics of the details." Nice cop-out. Then don’t get after atheists for the same mistake, you utter boob!!

This statement commits the fallacy of FALSE DICHOTOMY. I’ve already pointed this out in a recent post, and here Howie-boy is trying to get away with it AGAIN. Like a problem child, he just doesn’t learn. For that matter, I wonder how Howard and other theist folx think the Bible defines the concept ‘morality’ or ‘ethics’ and its essentials, such as the concepts ‘value’, ‘virtue’, ‘purpose’, etc. No, I’m not asking for a list of Christian values and virtues, I’m wondering HOW THE BIBLE DEFINES THESE TERMS (if it does at all.... snicker, snicker, snicker).

You don’t think that the scribes and priestly elites who wrote the Bible books in the first place were familiar with these concepts, do you? Or were they even concerned with defining their terms?? Apparently they didn’t do such a good job when they were defining their epistemological system, for there’s no definition for terms like ‘truth’, ‘knowledge’, ‘concept’, ‘axiom’, and other epistemological essentials that we have seen. Hmmm.... I wonder.... Perhaps the Bible does NOT define its terms??? No wonder there’s so much discord among the church members!! You think there’s a connection? Or, is it the Holy Spirit that’s supposed to do all the defining for the believer, and He’s out to lunch???

Still wondering about that one.....

Actually, it does make Howard look more than ignorant, it makes him look quite dishonest to be frank, which is far worse than being ignorant. But I know what you mean....

Don’t toy with me...

Which just goes to tell ya, Howard’s not the ONLY ONE who DOESN’T read well... tsk tsk. Perhaps this DISliteracy (borrowing a device from Davelone - here’s one to grease your well-earned ego, buddy!) is symptomatic with god-belief. Don’t get me started!!

Why is this so hard for religionists to accept? What is the problem?

I’d like to know where you get this notion that Ayn Rand "held the belief that industry is more important and the environment is expendable." Can you refer me to which article you take this from? I have read almost everything she published, and I don’t know where you get this accusation from. Perhaps you can help us here.

True, Rand was not a version of today’s environmentalists, and for good reason. However, she declared on many occasions that the only thing that will ever protect the environment will be technology, something that man cannot look to any ‘gods’ for, but must be free to produce as he sees fit.

Rand NEVER said that the environment is ‘expendable’. This is pure dishonesty.

But even besides this, it is a classic Christian yarn that the ‘end of the world’ is coming any day now anyhow (they’ve been buying into this apocalyptic hysteria since the inception of Christianity way back when the first church fathers held a vote to create a Bible in the first place). The doomsday threat is religious in origin, and was invented in order to keep individuals full of fear and humble, making them easier to rule. I’ve known MANY Christians personally (especially the ones who take the Bible’s garbage seriously) who have rationalized the destruction of the environment by dismissing it as ‘temporal’ and ‘something you can’t take with you’, and all that kind of bullshit. Doesn’t wash.

As I have mentioned in the past, all forms of secular collectivism are identical in every philosophical essential (metaphysics, epistemology, morality and politics) to religion. The only difference is secular counterparts, such as Marxism, Nazism, Communism and Fascism, all replace ‘god’ with ‘the State’. On every other level, they are the same. That is why you see so many nations which were formerly very religious becoming collectivized under Statist regimes, as the nation’s predominant philosophy (which is religious in nature) for centuries had already prepared the soil, so to say, for a new group of thugs (Statists) to come and replace the old group of thugs (religionists). One look at Russia will serve as an example.

Russia was Christianized in 988 under Vladimir 1 (primarily because Islam forbade him to drink alcohol). For almost a millennium Russia was a hotbed of Russian Orthodox Christianity, and the populations of Russia for centuries took this religion VERY seriously (try reading some of the literature which survived the Communist Revolution). The individual, who had no government recognized (and therefore no protected) right to exist for his own sake under religion, was taught that his ‘duty’ was to sacrifice himself to his god and his church. This ethic (deontology, self-sacrifice, altruism) was engrained into the population by religion (Christianity) for centuries (numerous examples of this are found throughout the literature of the Middle Ages and even through the 19th century). This unquestioned acceptance of the ethics of altruism as instituted and spread by religion prepared the transition to secular collectivism (Communism) beginning with the importation of Marxist ideas in the 1890’s.

Read Maxim Gorky’s Mother (Mat’, 1906) for an example of the orgiastic hysteria with which the young ‘heroes’ of the horrid novel take to sacrificing themselves to the new Marxist movement. Where did they get this ethic of self-sacrifice? How was this self-sacrifice legitimized and indoctrinated? Through Christianity. The transition from Christianity to Communism was as simple as taking down a scarecrow in a church sanctuary and erecting a statue of Lenin in the city squares. All Communism did was give the Russian population a new god to serve, and a new cause to sacrifice themselves to. The particulars changed, but the essentials remained the same. Look at any other nation that is run by a Statist dictatorship, scratch the surface. Underneath you’ll find the hollow shell of primitive philosophy. That primitive philosophy is: RELIGION.

I don’t want this happening in my backyard, that’s precisely why I expose religion for the filth that it is.

Tindrbox

$$$

_________________________________