(Moved from General Conversations to Freethinkers Debate.)

(This was originally posted by beenz04, but it got lost when the server crashed. Since it was a fairly long discussion, I'm copying and pasting the posts from the Google cache. There were a few more posts, but they were all lost.)

[b]beenz04[/b]: I know most objectivists are atheist, or at least agnostic, but are most atheists of the objectivist mindset? I know I've posted about how silly labels are...but it seems to me to be a very logical assumption and i am curious if it is false. Don't know what I'm getting at? Ask Ayn Rand or dictionary.com. ob·jec·tiv·ism (ŏb-jěk'tə-vĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. Philosophy One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.

[b]noor[/b]: I don't really consider myself an Objectivist, but I do have a lot in common with it. If you're using a loose definition of Objectivism such as the one above, then I'd qualify as one. Rand was pretty good on most topics, but her politics are the main area where I disagree.

Not many atheists are Objectivists even by a loose definition, based on what I've seen - a lot believe in relative morality and that sorta thing.

[b]john[/b]: Don't objectivists believe in pre-existing truths that exist as absolutes? I don't think atheists believe that ... like at all.

[b]noor[/b]: [quote]Don't objectivists believe in pre-existing truths that exist as absolutes? I don't think atheists believe that ... like at all.[/quote]

That's nonsense. Some atheists, yes (I used to be one myself), but not all. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in a god.

Besides, it's actually most theists who are relativists since things like morals are subjective to God's whim, reality is dependent on God, etc.

[b]john[/b]: Are you saying you used to be a relativist or an objectivist?

No, theists are not relativists. Relativism is also referred to as constructivism, meaning that individuals or possibly even societal groups as a whole construct their own truths. Even if God did change moral truths whenever He wanted, those truths would still not be relative simply because they would apply to all of mankind, existing as absolutes.

[b]noor[/b]: Ex-relativist.

Truth being based on God is relative to his whims. Moral truths constructed by God are technically a form of constructivism in itself as God gets to decide morals himself. It reduces moral truth to nothing but God's arbitrary opinion.

Individuals own themselves, which is an axiom because it cannot be denied without implicitly affirming it. Since people own themselves, they own their past, present and future, which is manifested as property, liberty and life. To lose your property is to lose a part of your past which produced that property, to lose your liberty is to lose your present, and to lose your life is to lose your future. Since self-ownership is an axiom anything that goes against it is irrational and wrong. This applies equally to all individuals and requires no appeal to the arbitrary opinion of any being, whether human or "supernatural".

[b]john[/b]: What then is the basis of truth?

[b]noor[/b]: Axioms of reality. A premise is an axiom if it can't be denied without implicitly affirming it, and so axioms cannot be defeated. To defeat something is to prove it wrong. Axioms can't be defeated, which proves them true, which proves they are reality.

[b]john[/b]: How can it be proven that self-ownership is an axiom? What if ultimately we don't control our own actions? What if we only think we do?

[b]noor[/b]: Self-ownership is an axiom because it can't be argued against without presupposing itself. To argue against existence necessarily requires presupposing your own existence.

As for the second part, it's possible - we could possibly be living in some sort of a simulated universe for all we know, but I don't seriously think that's true.
------------
(That's all I could get from the Google cache.)