Ayn Rand on God

[sidneyworld]

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

You know, Eagle, you're growing on me. But you really need to stop generalizing with idle supposition. I have a great deal of respect for Judaism. Just because one focuses their discussion on one thing, does not necessarily qualify ignorance in anything else.

Anne Marie

My extolling virtue is not a declaration of my audience's vice.

Are you projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto my text?

No, my sweet darlin. Just simply taking the opportunity to establish my exclusive position on the matter, considering the time I've dedicated on topic.

Sorwy....

Anne Marie

 

[eagleseven]

You know, Eagle, you're growing on me. But you really need to stop generalizing with idle supposition. I have a great deal of respect for Judaism. Just because one focuses their discussion on one thing, does not necessarily qualify ignorance in anything else.

Anne Marie

My extolling virtue is not a declaration of my audience's vice.

Are you projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto my text?

No, my sweet darlin. Just simply taking the opportunity to establish my exclusive position on the matter, considering the time I've dedicated on topic.

Sorwy....

Anne Marie

Only I called no-one ignorant in my previous post.

So your position is against a post that doesn't exist?

 

[sidneyworld]

My extolling virtue is not a declaration of my audience's vice.

Are you projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto my text?

No, my sweet darlin. Just simply taking the opportunity to establish my exclusive position on the matter, considering the time I've dedicated on topic.

Sorwy....

Anne Marie

Only I called no-one ignorant in my previous post.

So your position is against a post that doesn't exist?

I am referring to this statement as part of your opening post, Eagle.

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

How could you possible assume that folks are ignorant of Judaism simply because they focus on their own faith?

Anne Marie

 

[JBeukema]

How could you possible assume that folks are ignorant of Judaism simply because they focus on their own faith?

Anne Marie

He didn't make any such assumption; he merely said that they should not allow themselves to be ignorant in such matters- he never accused them of being so.

 

[sidneyworld]

How could you possible assume that folks are ignorant of Judaism simply because they focus on their own faith?

Anne Marie

He didn't make any such assumption; he merely said that they should not allow themselves to be ignorant in such matters- he never accused them of being so.

Yes, and I simply took "...the opportunity to establish my exclusive position on the matter, considering the time I've dedicated on topic".

There is good cause to mention this, because many people assume Christians are simply a product of ignorance. Some are, but in my experience the vast majority are not.

Anne Marie

 

[JBeukema]

most are the product of willful ignorance

 

[sidneyworld]

most are the product of willful ignorance

Some, my friend. Not me, perhaps not even you. God forbid that I should actually witness your coming around to my arena in diplomacy.

Hmmm.

am

 

[Ralph]

atheisim is an ideology.....one could argue it also meets the definition of a religion....

Only if one were a retard with no understanding of what the words mean.

Unfortunately, people are retarted with no understanding of what the word means:

Religion
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

It's easily arguable that athiesm is a person set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

It's also easily arguable that Athiesm is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.

Is simple....Please provide the Empirical Evidence of the non existence of the SUPER NATURAL, while considering the PHYSICAL FACT that NATURE lacks the ability to explain its own existence in the Scientific Method of Observed, Repeatable....Experimentation and is thus CONTINGENTLY existing in the IGNORANCE of its own CREATION. While the SUPERNATURAL professes to be responsible for that very existence. Simply prove that profession to be errant from the truth and demonstrate such in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Then you can get back to informing everyone just how smart you are.....and how stupid they are. But...I'm afraid that I am like the good people of Missouri, THE SHOW ME STATE. While you are demonstrating such....please explain, just one more time how RELIGION is defined by using the WORD religion in self description. A religion...empirically does not have to demonstrate a belief in the SUPERNATURAL at all....all it must do is demonstrate a FANATIC belief in something that is not sustained by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. One can make an irrational religion from any belief.....Darwinian Cultism that is unprovable in the Scientific Method..... Atheism that self contradicts itself from the starting gate...as it is self professed to believe in nothing....yet clearly demonstrating a FANATIC belief in the NON EXISTENT status of Divine Authority....of course void of the ABILITY to offer any EVIDENCE to PROVE their foundation of BELIEF. As FAITH (the hope that something not yet evident will become obtainable....in the future) is evident in ALL the above.

 

[sidneyworld]

Only if one were a retard with no understanding of what the words mean.

Unfortunately, people are retarted with no understanding of what the word means:

Religion
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

It's easily arguable that athiesm is a person set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

It's also easily arguable that Athiesm is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.

Is simple....Please provide the Empirical Evidence of the non existence of the SUPER NATURAL, while considering the PHYSICAL FACT that NATURE lacks the ability to explain its own existence in the Scientific Method of Observed, Repeatable....Experimentation and is thus CONTINGENTLY existing in the IGNORANCE of its own CREATION. While the SUPERNATURAL professes to be responsible for that very existence. Simply prove that profession to be errant from the truth and demonstrate such in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Then you can get back to informing everyone just how smart you are.....and how stupid they are. But...I'm afraid that I am like the good people of Missouri, THE SHOW ME STATE. While you are demonstrating such....please explain, just one more time how RELIGION is defined by using the WORD religion in self description. A religion...empirically does not have to demonstrate a belief in the SUPERNATURAL at all....all it must do is demonstrate a FANATIC belief in something that is not sustained by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. One can make an irrational religion from any belief.....Darwinian Cultism that is unprovable in the Scientific Method..... Atheism that self contradicts itself from the starting gate...as it is self professed to believe in nothing....yet clearly demonstrating a FANATIC belief in the NON EXISTENT status of Divine Authority....of course void of the ABILITY to offer any EVIDENCE to PROVE their foundation of BELIEF. As FAITH (the hope that something not yet evident will become obtainable....in the future) is evident in ALL the above.

Hi Ralph,

It would be so much more appealing to not deal with responses with so many UPPER CASES. That might seem ridiculous to you, as you obviously do it, but it turns me totally off to any post that has those.

Sorry. I just noticed that I didn't notice your response. Totally sincere here. If you want to have any of us respond, don't do that. K? We simply seem to ignore it.

Anne Marie

 

[JBeukema]

Is simple....Please provide the Empirical Evidence of the non existence of the SUPER NATURAL

you fail. You assert the affirmative; you bear the burden of proof.

Thank you for demonstrating once again that theists are mentally challenged liars.

 

[eagleseven]

No, my sweet darlin. Just simply taking the opportunity to establish my exclusive position on the matter, considering the time I've dedicated on topic.

Sorwy....

Anne Marie

Only I called no-one ignorant in my previous post.

So your position is against a post that doesn't exist?

I am referring to this statement as part of your opening post, Eagle.

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

How could you possible assume that folks are ignorant of Judaism simply because they focus on their own faith?

Anne Marie

I am not assuming that folks are ignorant of Judaism, nor am I assuming that folks are ignorant of atheism.

I am simply encouraging people to understand the foundations of their beliefs, whatever they are. I used that analogy to convey this point.

This is why I'm confused as to why you think I'm attacking Christians in this thread?

 

[sidneyworld]

Only I called no-one ignorant in my previous post.

So your position is against a post that doesn't exist?

I am referring to this statement as part of your opening post, Eagle.

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

How could you possible assume that folks are ignorant of Judaism simply because they focus on their own faith?

Anne Marie

I am not assuming that folks are ignorant of Judaism, nor am I assuming that folks are ignorant of atheism.

I am simply encouraging people to understand the foundations of their beliefs, whatever they are. I used that analogy to convey this point.

This is why I'm confused as to why you think I'm attacking Christians in this thread?

Let's assume that a reasonable amount of people understand the foundations of their faith.. I live a wonderful life, because of my faith.

That's one down and a billion to go, Eagle.

Just trying to help you out here....

Anne Marie

 

[Fatality]

Is simple....Please provide the Empirical Evidence of the non existence of the SUPER NATURAL

you fail. You assert the affirmative; you bear the burden of proof.

anyone with any brains at all could prove their point, seems youre the fail

 

[Fatality]

Faith, is, by definition, belief without evidence. That is contrary to reason and logic,

by your definition you mean.

\

the Biblical definition is:

action based on belief sustained by confidence

feel free to cite the verse in which your definition appears

interesting thaqt it still makes no mention of evidence or reason...

only one verse? th entire bible defines faith, you mean you didnt know that?

 

[Fatality]

Faith, is, by definition, belief without evidence. That is contrary to reason and logic,

by your definition you mean.

the Biblical definition is:

action based on belief sustained by confidence

Actually, that's Charity. You know the three virtues; Faith, Hope, and Charity?

Faith is maintaining belief sans proof.

ahhh...actualy no, "charity" is love, and the definition i gave for faiht is exact. you are fail!

faith is action based on belief sustained by confidence.

 

[JBeukema]

.

anyone with any brains at all could prove their point

Which explains why you are unable to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural or prove your point

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Disbelief in religious thought began with the creation of the first religion.

So, did Christianity begin between 1950--1980? No

Dit it begin in the 19th ceturary? No.

I think it began (actually) around 33 AD. Then, there were more anti-christian atheists!! Yet, Atheism existed before christianity.

Atheistic thought roots is embedded in the disbelief of God or Gods. After that, you are on an opinionated tangent that tries to encompass the basis of atheism(why does atheism needs a basis? Religious belief only needed handwaving!! Atheism is a solid statement that claims the theologians are making these religious concepts up!!). Ayn Rand, if she was an atheists, only expressed her ideas on the subject of religion. Other atheists, may have agreed or disagreed with her. But she was not founder or Leading intellectual on the subject.

Come to think about it, how can there be an intellectual leader of Athiesm. It is just a realization of one thing--there is no god. Not in the Christian sense. Not in the Islamic sense. Not in the Judaic sense. Not in the Hindi sense. Not in the Hellinic sense. Name the religion that need some conscience being or beings as a supreme creator--not in their sense as well.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey JB--these believers do not understand us atheism at all.

So I guess we need to list some things that brought us to "finding"(haha) Atheism.

So I will list some questions and answer them as honestly as possible.

1)What Book led you to Atheism? The Holy Bible.

2)Were you raised as an Atheist, or were you a practioner of a religious belief?
I was actually raised as a Methodists! Unfortunately, one of the tenets of Methodism suggest using reason to make sound decisions. From here, I started to ask the question--"Are miracles real, or are they analogy to help tell a story?" This led to other questions--and low and behold, I became a very profound skeptic.

For many reasons, my Atheistic progres should have stopped here. It would have if I did not take a more serious look at Mythology, or better, DEAD RELIGIONS. Funny thing is, that is also when I stopped asking "Is there a GOD?" and started asking "What is the purpose of religion?" I found that answer through the use of ancient mythology. Despite the fact that the GODs of Hellenic or Sumerian thought did not exists, the societies and wonders they built to celebrate their gods introduced and steadied the type of character cherished in those societies. In other words--religion is to shape the behavior of an individual. The use of gods helped to give reason, a basis, for a child to seek to better themselves in the eyes of powerful beings that may never talked to him/her. At the same time, I realized that without the religion, the society would not have an idea persona to imitate and the possibility of chaos threatened the social order. In other words--GODS GAVE STABILITY, even if they only existed in the mind.


3) Is there only one path to Atheism? I do not think so.

4)Is Atheism only against Christianity? First--atheism is not against any particular religion. On the other hand, it does tend to undermind many religions by suggesting that there is no GOD. The funny thing about it, I tend to believe that Athiesm is necessary to create new religions since it necessary to destroy the old order so that the newcan take root. Thus I am wary of organizations such as the Freedom from relgion and so forth since they tend to suggest a single ideology as well.

 

[eagleseven]

Disbelief in religious thought began with the creation of the first religion.

So, did Christianity begin between 1950--1980? No

Dit it begin in the 19th ceturary? No.

I think it began (actually) around 33 AD. Then, there were more anti-christian atheists!! Yet, Atheism existed before christianity.

Atheistic thought roots is embedded in the disbelief of God or Gods. After that, you are on an opinionated tangent that tries to encompass the basis of atheism(why does atheism needs a basis? Religious belief only needed handwaving!! Atheism is a solid statement that claims the theologians are making these religious concepts up!!). Ayn Rand, if she was an atheists, only expressed her ideas on the subject of religion. Other atheists, may have agreed or disagreed with her. But she was not founder or Leading intellectual on the subject.

Come to think about it, how can there be an intellectual leader of Athiesm. It is just a realization of one thing--there is no god. Not in the Christian sense. Not in the Islamic sense. Not in the Judaic sense. Not in the Hindi sense. Not in the Hellinic sense. Name the religion that need some conscience being or beings as a supreme creator--not in their sense as well.

I don't know if the above rubbish is the result of you projecting your rebellious tendencies onto your ideology, or a simple lack of historical background.

I think it began (actually) around 33 AD. Then, there were more anti-christian atheists!! Yet, Atheism existed before christianity.

Rubbish. In 33AD Atheists were killed in 90% of the world, and exiled in the other 10%. Let's look at Western Eurasia in 33AD.

Roman Empire: Worshipped the Classical Pantheon and the Imperial Cult.
Northern Europe: Worshipped the Norse or Celtic pantheons.
Africa: Tribal animism, the worship of spirits.
Persia: Zoroastrianism, the worship of the creator God.
Arabia: Worship of tribal Djinni.

Atheism was relegated to unorganized exiled hermits who had no power over their societies, and no way to communicate with eachother. They were as good as dead to the rest of humanity.

Today, 18% of, or 90 million, Europeans declare themselves atheist. After 3000 years of monotheism and polytheism, 90 million people don't just decide there is no God out of the blue.

No, there are causes of the development of atheism in Western Civilization, and it can be traced to the most popular thinkers of the 18th and 19th Century.

Thinkers like:
Voltaire
Kant
Fichte
Hegel
Bentham
Nietzche
Kierkegaard
Emerson
Marx

Just to name a few. If you live in either the Americas, Europe, or China and are atheist, your beliefs have been influenced by the above men. Even if you don't realize it, the majority of the discussions about atheism throughout the last century and online in this century are primarily re-hashes of the works of the above philosophers.

In light of this, trying to argue "I became atheist independently of everyone else" is not only ignorant, it is childish.

 

[eagleseven]

Hey JB--these believers do not understand us atheism at all.

I understand atheism just fine. You, on the other hand, are a confusing fellow.

So I guess we need to list some things that brought us to "finding"(haha) Atheism.

Not really. But go on and humor me.

1)What Book led you to Atheism? The Holy Bible.

The Bible convinced you that there is no such thing as Karma and Reincarnation? Incredible!

2)Were you raised as an Atheist, or were you a practioner of a religious belief?
I was actually raised as a Methodists! Unfortunately, one of the tenets of Methodism suggest using reason to make sound decisions. From here, I started to ask the question--"Are miracles real, or are they analogy to help tell a story?" This led to other questions--and low and behold, I became a very profound skeptic.

So I see, your rebellion against the religion of your youth colors your current thinking. Hmm...

For many reasons, my Atheistic progres should have stopped here. It would have if I did not take a more serious look at Mythology, or better, DEAD RELIGIONS. Funny thing is, that is also when I stopped asking "Is there a GOD?" and started asking "What is the purpose of religion?" I found that answer through the use of ancient mythology. Despite the fact that the GODs of Hellenic or Sumerian thought did not exists, the societies and wonders they built to celebrate their gods introduced and steadied the type of character cherished in those societies. In other words--religion is to shape the behavior of an individual. The use of gods helped to give reason, a basis, for a child to seek to better themselves in the eyes of powerful beings that may never talked to him/her. At the same time, I realized that without the religion, the society would not have an idea persona to imitate and the possibility of chaos threatened the social order. In other words--GODS GAVE STABILITY, even if they only existed in the mind.

Marx called religion the "Opiate of the Masses." Nietzche called this the "Slave Morality" while Ayn Rand called it the "Slave Mentality."

Hardly original.

3) Is there only one path to Atheism? I do not think so.

To be atheist, you must reject all supernatural deities.

4)Is Atheism only against Christianity? First--atheism is not against any particular religion. On the other hand, it does tend to undermind many religions by suggesting that there is no GOD. The funny thing about it, I tend to believe that Athiesm is necessary to create new religions since it necessary to destroy the old order so that the newcan take root. Thus I am wary of organizations such as the Freedom from relgion and so forth since they tend to suggest a single ideology as well.

Western atheism seeks to destroy religion as a cultural force, as witnessed by the old USSR, by China, and by American organizations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation.