Did you ahve more to add here?

Did you ahve more to add here?

I was going to respond to your other two points but got lazy :)

On this point I was done.

heh well I hope you get around to it.

I'll address your objectivist answer about checks and balances.  I know the answer to this but I would like to hear it in your own words:  why would an objectivist atheist want checks and balances?  What does an objectivist believe about the world that perhaps other atheists do not?

A single ruler who is not accountable to anyone, even if benign, is by definition a dictator. This type of rule infringes on the individual freedoms of other people. It is for this reason that an Objectivist would want the checks and balances that would be found in a true democracy.

It seems to me that you continue to basically question beg.  How could an atheist be a deranged lunatic and yet atheism be a more likely sign of rationality?

Same way it is more likely to draw a straight than a full house. It doesn't mean it is impossible to draw a full house, just less likely. 

It seems to me that for this sort of observation to work you have to have some sort of underlying, shall we say, inherent, believe that rationality is good.  I am deeply perplexed as to how you arrive at any kind of notions about 'goodness.'  Your whole thread suggests that Christianity is inherently immoral... isn't 'inherently' another way to say, 'absolutely, by nature, objectively'?

Are you proposing an 'inherent' moral code?  How would an inherent one be different than an objective one?

The answer to this is the same as it ever was. That which promotes life is moral, that which promotes death is immoral. Christianity promotes "life after death." Since Objectivists do not believe there is life after death, we see Christianity as simply promoting death, and therefore it is immoral.

I'm going to set aside your other points now for the more juicy paragraph that EB quoted, too.  I am not well versed enough in Objectivism to know if your comments are representative of the whole thing but I found your response here to be... well... convoluted to say the least.

"The answer to this is the same as it ever was. That which promotes life is moral, that which promotes death is immoral. Christianity promotes "life after death."

First of all, I think EB is quite right here to point out that the mainstream scientific view here flies right in the face of your 'morality.'  Evolution literally requires death, it requires the elimination of poorly adapted critters so that better adapted critters can emerge later.  It would seem that if you find anything inherently immoral it would be evolutionary theory.  Yea, it would be a little odd to find a theory 'immoral' but it seems at the least you should be disgusted by it.

Second of all by your own view Christianity should be the epitome of morality.  By asserting that there is 'life after death', if 'promoting life' is moral, than Christianity ought to beat the pants off of a concept of reality that does not have life after death. 

The case can be made along other lines, too.  For example, does it seem to you like Christians 'promote death'?   I trust that merely acknowledging that death is real is not 'promoting' death.  Jesus said that he came to bring life and life to the fullest, and this statement encompasses both life on this side of death and on the other side of death.  So, if 'promoting life' is moral then Christianity is 'inherently' moral.

By your own standard it is seeming like Christianity actually shines.  If we sat down and considered which societies and cultures have really 'promoted life' I would contend that Christianity is one of the most successful systems to do so.  Compare it to a system like Islam where 'martyrs' blow themselves and others up.   

Most strikingly, Christianity abhors death, so that should be right up your alley.  Sure, Christians see death as a necessary step to that life beyond death but they understand that death is a very bad thing.  It was a thing to be defeated. The Bible describes it as an enemy.  You do realize this, don't you?  The whole idea of the resurrection is that Jesus defeated death.

I have decided that I accept your moral standard.  The whole point of Christianity is that it is at war with death and is the victor.

The real convolution in your statement though, is this: 

"Since Objectivists do not believe there is life after death, we see Christianity as simply promoting death, and therefore it is immoral."

But there is nothing 'inherent' about this!  This is definitional.  It depends on your particular outlook.  The whole point of asking if something is 'inherently immoral' is to ask whether or not something would appear to be immoral without regard to any particular system at all.  So, for example, we might challenge the jihadist and ask him if it is not inherently immoral to slaughter hundreds in a car bomb.  The essence of the challenge is that any sane, morally reasonable person would intuitively see that such a slaughter is definitely immoral.  That is an appeal to 'inherency' and it clearly works, as evidenced by the hordes of Muslims who are appalled at what is being done in their religion.

But your accusation cannot rely on raw human nature but rather requires one to adopt a particular view, ie, there is no God and there is no life after death.  In other words, Christianity is not inherently immoral, but is immoral relative to your system.

That's assuming that it actually is immoral relative to your system.  It would seem that even according to your system it is moral and goes even beyond the Objectivist in its pursuit of 'that which promotes life.' 

As a final shot, I can't see how one can possibly blame Christianity for being immoral because it operates on terms that are not shared by the atheist.   It would be akin to a Chinaman claiming that an American was breaking the law by having more than one kid.  That would be ridiculous because the American is not required to follow China's laws and can't therefore be measured by them.

The best the Chinaman could do is try to appeal to an 'inherent' law, which requires positing that there is a morality or law that transcends both the American and the Chinaman.  The existence of such a morality is precisely one of the things you deny.  As such, there is no such thing (by your system) as anything inherently immoral.

"A scientific theory can be no more moral or immoral than a rock."

Well, I said it was kind of weird.  I think the point was that if 'that which promotes life is good' and 'that which promotes death is bad' then evolutionary theory should piss you off.  It also raises the question of how you came to such a view on morality if in fact you are the result of processes that literally hinge on death for the creation of humans, and hence, your moral system.

"It's just too tedious to try to debate with someone who is going to try to ascribe a sense of morality to a scientific theory."

Oh get off it, Rag.  You knew exactly what my point is.  You're just looking for an excuse to bail out of the conversation.  Run if you like. 

"Clearly, I was referring to the choices a human makes in regards to promoting life or death."

As was I.

"Last I checked, Christians were big on sacrifice. Another reason Christianity is immoral."

Your understanding is flawed and simplisitic.  However, even to the extent that you think you understand it your argument is flawed.   If Christians make the choices that they do on the understanding that they are in fact promoting life, even if these choices are sacrifices, it might be within your moral framework.  A mother who dies so her child might live would be an example.  Even a mother who works 80 hours a week is promoting life, though she sacrifices much of her time.

So 'sacrifice' is not inherently anti-life.

"No, because it is promoting a fiction at the cost of reality."

Assuming it is a fiction.  We have a different assumption.  Hence my dispute with you as to whether or not your declaration is really 'inherent.'

"This is not the whole story, though. Christianity teaches that it is better to sacrifice your own happiness for someone else's. Indeed, it could be argued that this is living "life to the fullest" according to Christianity."

No, this is not what Christianity teaches.  If anything, the more accurate statement would be that Christianity teaches that certain sacrifices will bring you more happiness.  The contention would be that selfishness does not ultimately make you happier than unselfishness. Again, the mother who works 80 hours a week will have a happiness of knowing her kids live to be healthy adults.  Are you going to say her happiness is a 'fiction'?

"This is immoral according to the Objectivist."

And thus not 'inherent.'  It is only 'immoral' relative to your particular system.  As such, there is no sense in asking if Christianity is 'inherently immoral' in an open forum.  You can ask the question among other Objectivists but it is meaningless outside that group.

"Irrelevant, the topic is about Christianity because this is a Christian website. I never said Christianity was the worst religion in the world.  "

Sure, it is a Christian website, but your moral standard requires that the positions of Objectivism are true.  Otherwise, what are you appealing to?  Are you trying to convince Christians that their view is 'inherently immoral' because it promotes furthering the happiness of others possibly at the expense of their own?  That would be pretty bizarre, since they don't share the view that this is 'inherently' bad but they are innocent of the charge, anyway.  They don't give up their happiness at the expense of someone else's.  They give up something and this actually makes them 'happy.'  So by your own standard, they are moral.

"How are Christian martyrs defeating death?"

Uh, Christian martyrs aren't defeating death.  Jesus defeated death.  The whole point is that death is bad.  So you should be on board.  You should be saying to yourself, "Holy crap.  Life is good and death is bad and here is a religion that agrees and not only that but says that death has been defeated.  Maybe its true!  How can I find out?"

Maybe your assessment on what are the 'fictions' needs to be re-thought.

"It is not "my system," it is reality. Prove to me there is life after death and I'll jump right on board. Otherwise, your system is at odds with objective reality."

Prove to me that there is no life after death.   But it is a system, and within it you assume there is no life after death.  Within my system, there is.  Thus, within the context of my system, your moral challenges are actually met and exceeded.

"Umm, no, the existence of such a morality is exactly what I am promoting. Your morality is based on the teachings of a book - the whims of others. Mine is based on reality."

So, you would have me be persuaded by the morality of you- the whims of the Objectivists.  That's rich.  Clearly what is at stake here is just exactly who has the right conception of reality.  All the rest of this is smokescreen.

"With so many possible different viewpoints coming at you, I don't see how any kind of objective morality is remotely possible under Christianity."

It isn't as hard as you make out.  There are an awful lot of different moralities possible under atheism, too.  Why should I listen to the objectivist rather than the communist?

"The Objectivist is telling you to say, "What should I do?" What would make you the most happy, fulfill you the most, give you the most long-term benefit in this life?"

I think this is well documented attitude among Objectivists.  Isn't the question, "Why? On what basis and on what grounds do you advocate for such a view?"

At this point the general contention seems to be "I don't need a basis.  It's just true."  That's why I'm objecting to your argument that Christianity is inherently immoral.  Inherency presumes some sort of objective standard that transcends both of our perspectives and upon which each can be measured against to see which one more closely aligns.  You deny such a standard exists so it seems to me that nothing could actually be inherent.  Christianity is only immoral from the assumption of the Objectivist framework.

One solution would be to admit that there is an objective reality and an objective standard of morality.

"My contention here is that Christianity cannot do this."

I don't agree.  Christianity claims that it will make you the happiest, fulfill you the most, and give you the most long-term benefit in this life- and the next.  There might be some disputing about 'benefit.'  If by 'benefit' we must mean wealth and health to the exclusion of everything else then perhaps Christianity can't fulfill that particular plank.  If 'benefit' can be extended to psychological well being and other intangibles then I think it might be a contestant.  Not that I see any reason yet to accept the terms of your argument, per se.  I just don't see it as certainly the case that under the terms of your argument Christianity doesn't or can't meet your terms.

"Christianity puts the religion above the individual."

That's not true.  This is a really weird thing for you to say.  Christianity is all about the individual.   I think you need to clarify what on earth you mean by this.

"what is to clarify? "love me or suffer wrath and anger" is not putting the individual first."

It certainly isn't putting the 'religion' first, is it?  It would be putting God first, not the religion.  You said:

"Christianity puts the religion above the individual."

There is nothing in what you cited that puts religion above the individual.

Also, when I said that Christianity is all about the individual, I did not say it was about 'putting the individual first.'  'First' is your word, not mine.

"i've stated the objective morality repeatedly. that which leads to life is moral, that which leads to death is immoral. happiness is an extension of "that which leads to life."

Yea, I hear it, but its still nonsense, for the reasons that I've repeatedly offered.

"if christianity does not outright encourage death, at the very least it has no problem with it because death supposedly leads to heaven."

So?  On the Christian view, heaven is 'eternal life.'  It is only because you believe that there is nothing after death that you think this is 'immoral.'  But if the Christian is right, and 'that which leads to life' is in fact the highest moral calling, then obviously they are on the right track.  And YOU, caring as you say about 'that which leads to life' should want to make dang sure that the Christian isn't right.

As for the subtle insinuation about encouraging death, since Christians are at the forefront attempting to fight off death, you know, creating hospitals left and right, creating adoption agencies, etc, etc, then you must be missing something in your comprehension of the Christian worldview.  Why would all these people who 'have no problem with death' nonetheless be working their tails off to fight it?  Or can you list me 10 hospitals created by Randian Objectivists?  Can you give me even one?

Who really are the ones bravely fighting off death?  The Objectivist, looking after his own arse, and only his own arse, or all the Christians fighting off their own deaths and the deaths of others, putting their money where their mouths are?  And all this in context of thinking there is something on the other side of death... interesting... what could explain it?  What are you missing?