Ayn Rand on God

[eagleseven]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS6vxb4H3M]YouTube - Ayn Rand - Faith vs Reason[/ame]

"You are never called to prove a negative."

 

[Oddball]

Who??

 

[jillian]

Why do we care what Ayn Rand said on this subject?

 

[eagleseven]

Why do we care what Ayn Rand said on this subject?

It is important for the atheists here to understand their roots, just as the Christians here ought not to be ignorant of Judaism.

 

[jillian]

Why do we care what Ayn Rand said on this subject?

It is important for the atheists here to understand their roots, just as the Christians here ought not to be ignorant of Judaism.

think maybe you can keep it in one laudatory thread so you don't annoy the bejezus out of us while you're elucidating?

and given that i can't access youtube at work, is ayn rand suddenly the mother of atheism?

 

[eagleseven]

Why do we care what Ayn Rand said on this subject?

It is important for the atheists here to understand their roots, just as the Christians here ought not to be ignorant of Judaism.

think maybe you can keep it in one laudatory thread so you don't annoy the bejezus out of us while you're elucidating?

and given that i can't access youtube at work, is ayn rand suddenly the mother of atheism?

Suddenly? No, she's part of a long line of atheist thought originating in 19th-century Europe.

But she brought Atheism to the masses in America like no other before her. This is a prime-time television discussion of Atheism in front of a live Audience from 30 years ago! Such a topic being discussed openly on television was almost unheard of back then.


And I'm not certain why you would be annoyed by two small threads? There are a dozen or so threads on Christianity if you prefer...

 

[JBeukema]

It is important for the atheists here to understand their roots

The reason I object to that sentence is that is is misleading, in that it treats atheism as an ideology. Once can speak of the roots of libertarianism, or of Secular Humanism or of Christianity, but to speak of 'roots' of a personal non-belief in deity seems fallacious.

 

[eagleseven]

It is important for the atheists here to understand their roots

The reason I object to that sentence is that is is misleading, in that it treats atheism as an ideology. Once can speak of the roots of libertarianism, or of Secular Humanism or of Christianity, but to speak of 'roots' of a personal non-belief in deity seems fallacious.

Atheism didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. It has a long tradition dating back to the early 19th Century that lives on today. Most of what Atheists argue today has been argued for several centuries now.

Understanding the history of Atheism is like understanding the history of Biology...neither occurred in a vacuum. Studying Atheist philosophy also helps you avoid re-inventing the wheel.

 

[JBeukema]

I think it says much that the same arguments have been forwarded for centuries and theists still ignore them,.

As I watch the video, most of what she is saying is what I would call a 'standard' collection of responses one expects from a reasoning atheist.

 

[eagleseven]

I think it says much that the same arguments have been forwarded for centuries and theists still ignore them,.

As I watch the video, most of what she is saying is what I would call a 'standard' collection of responses one expects from a reasoning atheist.

And that's the beauty of it. They are now standard because she went on TV in the ultra-religious 1950s and told America "This is why I'm an atheist, and this is why I'm right."

Her arguments were used by philosophers in Europe for almost a century before she was born, but she brought those Arguments unabashedly to "A Christian Nation."

 

[JBeukema]

So, she was basically the precurosr to the role Dawkins plays now?

 

[Neser Boha]

Yet again, I marvel at the fact that anyone - anyone especially with at least half a brain - pays any attention at all to what she has to say on any subject at all - especially when it comes to philosophy. To me, one of the biggest and most expensive proofs of human stupidity is the establishment of Ayn Rand Institute. WTF.

 

[JBeukema]

Nesar, all of her arguments in that video were sound, Is there some reason you dislike her?

 

[eagleseven]

So, she was basically the precurosr to the role Dawkins plays now?

Yes, she was the Dawkins of 1950-1980, and angered just as many people.

Unlike Dawkins, she attacked both Christians and Socialists/Communists. In fact, she saw Chrisitianity as a theistic version of Communism. She made lots of enemies, and didn't give a damn.

Which is why both the religious right and the socialist left HATED her. Even to this day, many leftists and Christian fundies would dance on her grave. Like Nesar above me.

 

[Neser Boha]

Nesar, all of her arguments in that video were sound, Is there some reason you dislike her?

Yes, I dislike her because she only got so famous because of her opposition to Communism (or any sort of collectivist society) at a certain point in time... And her books sucked ass.

 

[Oddball]

Yet again, I marvel at the fact that anyone - anyone especially with at least half a brain - pays any attention at all to what she has to say on any subject at all - especially when it comes to philosophy. To me, one of the biggest and most expensive proofs of human stupidity is the establishment of Ayn Rand Institute. WTF.

That half a brain part pretty much explains it all, insofar as you're concerned here.

You don't have to drink the Kool-Aid to take true and poignant observations from any given philosopher, for those observations to have meaning and relevance.

 

[JBeukema]

Nesar, all of her arguments in that video were sound. Is there some reason you dislike her?

Yes, I dislike her because she only got so famous because of her opposition to Communism (or any sort of collectivist society) at a certain point in time... And her books sucked ass.

Neither of which has any bearing on the validity of her arguments.You seem bitter for some reason. It is because she argued against a socialist pipedream that you happen to fantasize about or something?

 

[Diuretic]

I doubt if atheism was a product of the 19th Century, it was around before then. Agnosticism, yes, it was only given a name by one of the Huxleys - Alduous I think it was (someone pointed that out to me).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ayn was one of the brightest of the intelligent idiots to ever migrate to \America. G?Awd bless that batty old hag with the sexual perversions. If she weren't so selfish she might have enjoyed life instead of fighting with everyone who ever had the nerve to get close to her.

sigh

 

[eagleseven]

Nesar, all of her arguments in that video were sound, Is there some reason you dislike her?

Yes, I dislike her because she only got so famous because of her opposition to Communism (or any sort of collectivist society) at a certain point in time... And her books sucked ass.

I called that one, didn't I?

Unlike Dawkins, she attacked both Christians and Socialists/Communists. In fact, she saw Chrisitianity as a theistic version of Communism. She made lots of enemies, and didn't give a damn.

Which is why both the religious right and the socialist left HATED her. Even to this day, many leftists and Christian fundies would dance on her grave. Like Nesar above me.