What is an experiment but a personal experience? No scientist ever got be a scientist without actual experimentation - doing something. Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for theorizing about the pressure of light, but actually proving it through experimentation. Watson and Crick observed the helical nature of DNA - again by experimentation - not just an educated guess. Ferme, Tesla, Edison, Newton, Galileo - the list is long - all personally carried out experiments and witnessed for themselves the outcomes. Then others did exactly the same thing and compared their personal experiences with those of the original experimentor for validation.

Now, if I - being one person - claimed something and no one else could verify it, I would agree that questioning that would be totally reasonable. But if I am not the only one who has conducted the test and my experience matches up with another's - let alone millions of others - it then becomes incumbent upon those who reject my testimony to do so after actually performing the test and observing differently. Cold fusion was first claimed yet successive testing failed to validate and confirm the original findings. Without successive testing, however, there was nothing with which to refute the initial claims.

"As I said earlier, if testimonials were scientific evidence, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true."

I think one thing that should be pointed out is that scientific tests are conducted to isolate individual and distinct principles only. Religions and philosophies incorporate many such principles - each of which individually must be tested for accuracy. There are literally hundreds and arguably thousands of schools of thought out there and many contain ideas which contradict others - even in their own general groupings. Sunni and Shia fundamentally disagree on the lineage of authority within Islam. So does much of Christianity for that matter. Some Christians believe the Bible to be just nice moral stories while others take it to be literal truth. Some Christian denominations accept homosexuality and others don't. Judaism waits for the Messiah that Christianity claims has already come but which Islam denies as only being a prophet. Buddhism advocates for personal enlightenment and spiritual advancement. Satanists worship an entity Christians and many others claim to be the epitome of evil. There is such a variety that to attempt to lump everything together in one is a logical fallacy of massive proportions.

For a religion/philosophy to be "true" it would have to be 100% reflective of reality. That's a tall order, I completely agree. Every single aspect and principle would have to individually be accurate in order for the whole to be "true". Rand identified many complaints about the Catholic Church that I share with her. What I caution against is the fallacy of inclusion: that because one religion includes several faulty principles that by mere association all others similarly are faulty. It comes back to principles: identify the correct principles and then see by principle of elimination which schools of thought remain standing. But here again, one can not identify correct principles without trial (and error). Thought without action is unconfirmed hypothesis - not proven theory. Experimentation and conclusion are the result of action.

What you are describing is neither science nor objective evidence. No scientific journal will publish an article based on “this is my (or our) personal experience.” Acceptance of a scientific finding requires, among other things, that the finding be objectively observable and that repeated performances of the experiment that led to that finding yield the same results. As I said earlier, if testimonials were scientific evidence, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true.

But that is my entire point. You reject the first and foremost source of evidence: personal experience. Until a scientist acts on a hypothesis, creates a test, and then exercises that test, what does he have? A wish only. And afterwards? He has his personal experience in carrying out the test. Look at the scientific journals. What are they? They are showings of personal experiences in testing out various hypotheses. If you deny that personal experiences are proof, you deny science in totality. If you choose to deny what has been seen, felt, touched, tasted, or smelled - i.e. experienced - simply because you wish to deny that it could be real, so be it. But don't try to claim that that is anything other than blatant prejudice. If those do not qualify as "objective evidence", I have no idea what possibly could - and I question that you do either.

Followed by:

"If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state's discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man's protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

"The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today's anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called "conservatives," who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?...

"One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that 'rights impose obligations'. Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and protected.

"Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents 'involuntary servitude'."

Our rights are the result of recognizing the moral requirements to live in accordance with our nature as human beings. Civil rights encoded in law are supposed to acknowledge and protect those rights. The conservative notion of undefined and unexplained rights decreed to 'come from god' versus arbitrary decrees by government is a grotesque false alternative.

Re: "GEOWASH says otherwise". This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a George Washington one.

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." -- Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Ayn Rand did not advocate "leaving the system" to reform it and did not embrace any "Dark Side" of anything or "money madness". Corporations are voluntary associations of individuals. Interest on loans, contrary to the 'anti-usurery' religious fanatics, is the price for using someone else's money. Please stop the rambling repetitive preaching and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand.

Please stop the repetitive preaching with the same false premise.

Since the republican form is still the law of the land, it is only the consenting citizens and their government that has strayed into a socialist democratic totalitarian police state.

GEOWASH says otherwise:
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
. . . . . . . . . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.

Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights.

Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
. . . . . . . . . .

Remember, an American sovereign domiciled upon private property is a 'foreign' to the government.

All sovereigns are foreign to other sovereigns.

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.

And therefore, the American people who are "Sovereigns without subjects" are also foreign to their respective state governments.

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”

- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

If Justice John Jay is not lying, then no American government is a sovereign, nor can it "rule" / govern without consent of the governed.
DING DING DING.

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“. . . A sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192

And if government is not sovereign, guess who is?
The PEOPLE.
Who says so?
The servant government.

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.
[ Glass vs The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

In most government forms, one may be asked to claim to be a citizen, but there is no bar to claiming to be an American national, non-resident to the forum, and thus not surrender any inherent rights nor powers. In fact, the State department will issue passports to non-citizen American nationals.

Also, when you read statutes, pay attention if they apply to all the people or just persons subject to or object of the government. Only by actually reading the law will you be convinced that the republican form is still the law of the land.

It is a correct observation that I do not accept Ms Rand's philosophy, as expressed in "Atlas Shrugged."

John Galt (“Atlas Shrugged”) got it almost right - you have to leave “the system”. You can’t rescue a sinking socialist (pirate) ship of state by adding more crew. Cooperation with evil, only makes more evil. Withdrawing consent is a viable tactic.

But Ayn Rand got it wrong when she embraced the "Dark Side" - government privileged, limited liability artificial persons (i.e., corporations), usury (interest), and money madness - the belief in money tokenism independent of the market. There is no way a finite, scarce metallic coin can maintain economic proportionality with the dynamic marketplace of goods and services. And worse, usury requires an infinite money supply, due to the exponential equation used for compound interest.

Though compulsory charity is a curse, voluntary charity is dependent upon benevolence of those who have more than they need - a surplus. And prosperity is built upon the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services - not the acquisition of money tokens. A mountain of money is useless if there is nothing to buy with it. If John Galt espoused prosperity, while avoiding the pitfalls of money madness, and denounced predators and parasites, “Atlas Shrugged,” may have been better received.

Soundbite version: The left wing "looters" and the right wing "usurers" are but opposite wings of the same vulture, feeding on the carcass of American property owners.
. . . .
The following link is to a science fiction story that highlights some aspects similar to a republican form and liberty money, but erroneously links it to civil disobedience.

“And Then There Were None”
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
= = =

America’s “original recipe”
> ||| The republican form of government ||| <

Believer or Not, do you really object to a government instituted to secure creator endowed rights, privileges, powers, and immunities, which cannot tax, impair or infringe said endowment, unless in pursuit of justice for an injured party or by consent of the governed?
. . .
Furthermore, do you really object to a servant government composed of unselfish, brave, virtuous people who surrender their sovereignty, in order to serve the people, via mandatory civic duties (jury duty, militia duty, paying taxes), and who are held to a higher standard of behavior (service is a privilege not a right), so that the sovereign people will have no grounds to object to them?
. . .
What more do you want?
The law on the books is in harmony with the republican form. If you do not consent to be governed, you retain your endowment, as defined by the organic documents that established the governments.

Unlike all other nations, America has a republican form, due to the Declaration of Independence, whose principles are repeated in every constitution in the USA. Americans are “born equal” ergo, not subject to a superior, or any other - unless they consent. They have natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, and so on.

Contrast that with the French Revolution, and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In France, you are born a subject of the sovereign government. No other government created since 1776, acknowledged that the people are sovereigns, and the governments are their servants, not their rulers.

That most Americans do not know this fact is a victory for the World’s Greatest Propaganda Ministry.
. . .
. . .
Americans, unlike the rest of the world, have a choice:
[] Republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant, instituted to secure their endowed rights.
-OR-
<> Democratic form of government, where the citizens are subjects of their sovereign government, and serve it.
. . .
Of course, once consent is given, shut up, sit down, and obey.
. . .
As to the many and valid objections to the current indirect democratic socialist totalitarian, but benevolent police state, according to the law YOU CONSENTED TO IT.

You might wish to inquire further, as to HOW and WHEN you gave consent to be governed. You might write polite questionnaires to your sovereign government.
Ask for copies of the constitutional laws that:
1. Govern you without your consent;
2. Impose involuntary servitude in the 50 states united;
3. Require enrollment into FICA;
4. Impose an excise tax on any endowed right or liberty; and
5. Restrict or regulate personal liberty.
. . .
He who consents cannot complain.
Silence is passive consent.

This forum has no use for militant religionists who swagger in here obnoxiously accusing us of being "fools" for rejecting his religion and spewing obscenities like: "I have no use for those who return to lick up there own vomit over and over again". This disgusting intrusive troll should be removed from the forum.

How many times does it have to be explained to this clown that rejecting out of hand the arbitrary and the meaningless does not require disproving a negative?

Belief in the supernatural cannot "coexist with Objectivism" within a mind that is consistent. See Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her *Philosophy: Who Needs It?", and many other explanations of why she rejected the supernatural. Her philosophy of reason is not a Chinese menu to be combined with its opposite on the whim of obnoxious religious militants. "Primacy of Existence" is the principle recognizing existence as prior to consciousness, which perceives existence and which must then understand what it is, does not mean renaming "existence" to mean whatever a subjectivist imagines it to be as he proclaims some consciousness had to create and give identity to everything that is. That is the classical, first example of the fallacy of the "Primacy of Consciousness". Recognizing that and rejecting it for what it is is not an "atheist fool's religion" "for those who return to lick up there own vomit".

The straw man of "rejection of supernatural" as athiesm is just that. If you are going to aproach athiesm as a science rather than a religion then prove that god does not exist. Prove your hipothosys - prove that nothing supernatural exists, that there is no god. When you can we can talk until then what you have is a religion that is based on the rejection of supernatural which you cannot prove.

The rest of objectivism can coexist with others who are not athiest, that part cannot.

I have no use for those who return to lick up there own vomit over and over again. I have have added you to my ignore list. You are like a record player with one track, and I simply asked why keep playing the same track, why focus on it, when it has no bearing what so ever on the issue at hand. I get this thread from you. I hope I will never see a post of yours again. You are the first and only person with that distinct honor, and its not a good one to have of making my ignore list.

CBJ,

Thanks again for a post that suggests a desire to understand one and other.

I should be more clear. I believe that god is simple a man who is much further down a evolutionary and development process. This being the case he is subject to whatever laws govern the existence he is in.

I agree with primacy of existence, however how does one define existence? When rand was alive her definition of existence provided a very different view of gays than her foundation has today. At one time the world was flat and had the sun rotating around it. Today we think we are in a flat universe, that some researches say may also be round. We may find proof that we are in a universe that is contained in a much larger sphere of existence. What existence is, is in fact a constantly changing definition.

It is possible that a creator created the part or existence we currently understand but is part of something much larger. There are two things I see as true about existence. We have no idea how large it may be, or what it may be comprised of. Everything we find simply indicates there is much more to find and learn.

If god/creator created our patch of existence we understand today there would be rules that would govern this creation process, that would exist and be able to be understood by rational investigation over time.

In this structure it is possible for a creator to exist who has more knowledge than I outside of what we know and understand of existence at this time. that creator would have to follow the same rules that govern existence that I do in the creation process. Also I, or any person, willing to put the time and effort in could understand anything that that creator could or would do.

Furthermore if that creator were to be a perfect being, the ideal man. He would have a perfect knowledge of what was best, how things would interact... and would be bound to behave in that fashion.

So yes, I do not see the creator as someone that brought into existence everything from nothing. From my view all has existed always. You me, gold, baser elements... they simply can be structured in different ways.

Much as you or I can organize the matter into a house, or a barn.... a creator can do so to create likely multiple universes within universes. I see the requirement of a mind to organize matter as axiom of anything being created.

Once the right conditions are created it may be that the creator went his way and let his experiment bake, it may be that some very advanced race (like in the Stargate TV show) seeded earth with life and then went away. There are many plausible ways that things became organized, but it happening on pure chance is one I see as foolish to accept and will not do so.

If god/creator organized matter into what we see around us. Very likely through processes of evolution, then supremacy of existence still holds true. It does require something different than traditional objectivism in the definition of reality/existance.

I do not operate from an assumption that I understand all that exists, and therefor cannot eliminate from the real of possibility a creator. I can look around at the world we are in, the exact specifications that are required by the distance from a sun, the mass needed to hold that distance, the energy output of the sun, the balance of water, land and air. The mass of the moon to effect the tides... and lots of other factors I am sure I have never thought of, and still more that no one on this earth has thought of as well. Just those I know are pretty hard to look at and say it was just chance circumstance. Those observations say to me that a mind must be behind it, so what must that mind be like, and how might that work.

It is this line of questioning that has helped me form the view I have a a creator, and of atheism in general.

We likely both think the other foolish for believing what we believe. I think its wonderful that you and I can have a civilized discussion about it, and I hope this has added some clarity on my thoughts around the matter and thank you for your posts.

To recap. All matter that exists has always existed. It changes forms. this is true in areas of which we have a well founded understanding (chemistry), I think it will be true for most everything, if not everything. and the creator could be viewed as more of an organizer. I see that creator as being able to be understood. There are no mysteries we cannot understand. In fact I see the advances of science as a method to reach a level of understand that our "organizer" if you prefer had or has.

My argument is that a creator must exist in order to organize matter. It does not organize itself into something productive and useful without a mind of some type behind it. That organizer would have to exist, along with existence from the beginning to the end, if there even is a beginning and an end to existence. My personal view is that there is no beginning point and no end point.

Existence is infinite, and in fact if there is a beginning or an end the supremacy of consciousness or supremacy of existence debate would then have meaning as it would be one or the other. I do not accept that it is one or the other of the two. If existence itself is eternal and man is also eternal in some form, then existence is ultimately supreme as man must exist within existence. If god is simply an ideal version of man and god organized our world/universe (whatever term you like) he would have been required to create it following the laws of existence. That organizer would have created out ruled of existence but they would be based on the rules as he/she understands them, with perfect understanding of those laws.

What this means to man here in existence. If the rights of man are creator endowed then that creator recognized the rights of existence and provided those same rights to everyone within his creation. That organizer did not attempt to alter those rights, but maintained them by natural laws. We can discern those natural laws and in the end it does not really matter if they were "creator endowed natural rights" or simply "natural rights."

The entire point of this thread that I obviously made poorly is it does not matter. Either they are creator endowed or not. They are natural rights and therefor can be determined through natural means.

Hopefully this has done more than muddy the waters. I hope it has cleared things up a bit on how I define existence. It is however not locked in, as I understand more it adjusts. To me its an axiom that a creator exists; it is absolutely inconceivable that everything that created life happened by chance. I do not believe that an objectivitist view of existence and mine are incompatible. I think quite the contrary, that I and my church are more comparable with objectivitist than we tend to be with much of the christen denomination.

I also am sorry that I offended you. People such as yourself that will discuss the issue are not fools. I do disagree with the atheist part of objectivism, but can respect that you do not. Some others that reject anyone who believes existence is larger than what we can immediately see and touch without understanding anything about the view of existence I do count as fools. Some, although a minority, of those that profess to follow Rand's philosophy fall into that category. You have proven you are not one of them, and I would count you as a possible friend in political battles we face in the future.

I think it is primarily in the definition of existence that I differ from the pure objectivists.

This next section included more religious aspects of existence than I normally like to bring up in a location such as this. You do not have to agree with it, but since you have asked about the creator some I think it necessary to fully understand where I come from in my view. I am keeping it as concise as I can and attempt to keep most of the religion out. It is not my intent to proselyte in anyway. If your interested you will look at it yourself.

I think that existence is, that it has always been and that only the form has changed over time. In my belief system we existed as something our church calls intelligence by revelation. I suspect at some point science will help us understand what that was. God progressed faster than the rest of us. He, with others then developed a plan to organize a world (perhaps many of them) in which we could move from a purely spiritual realm to a physical realm. This allowed for further progression, and greater knowledge. He himself went though this same progression we are now in. This plan also allows for progression after death within other steps in a greater realm of existence than we currently understand.

Laws which govern our existence, have always done so. those laws are what the creator would have used to create natural rights, or perhaps better worded organize natural rights. We can see those without having to know if a creator existed or not.

This is getting long, but hopefully helpful providing some understand of where I am coming from in believing in an organizer of matter and the supremacy of existence and the two co-exisrting.

-XR

Note: I just looked back over this and can see several confusing points. It may get the main idea of my thinking over it may not. I have changed nothing from my original rambling, jousted added this line. There are some specifics that contradict in there that I need to clean up, but I still think the main idea gets delivered. Its a first draft of something that should probably have two or three drafts before being posted. Not taking the time to do that, so hope its good enough.

He hasn't said anything about the nature of rights and why we have them. He repeatedly insists on theism, denouncing those who reject it as holding a "fools religion" and nonsensically claiming that there is "no room for debating the nonsensical anti-concepts such as the nonexistence of a god", making arbitrary assertions about what "rules" the supernatural must follow, and demanding that anyone who rejects his primacy of consciousness supernaturalism disprove his arbitrary pronouncements.

His insults, demands, arbitrary theistic pronouncements, and dogmatic insistence that there is no "room" to discuss rejection of his theism because he claims the rejection of belief in the supernatural is a "nonsensical anti-concept" is not cognitively serious discussion. It doesn't make any difference what his arbitrary views are on the details of his creationism endowment theology.

You just insulted us as "fools" for rejecting your faith. Faith is the opposite of reason. Rejecting it is not "a complete lack of logic or rational" and does not make either Ayn Rand or us "fools". Existence was not "created" out of literally nothing, the changing form of the physical universe is a consequence of its identity, and your claims that a conscious being had to "organize matter" is in fact primacy of consciousness denying the concepts of identity and causality.

If you had understood "about everything Rand has written" that you claim to have read you would know that and would know better than to swagger in here with your obnoxious insults and religious pronouncements.

You said Ayn Rand's philosophy's rejection of faith in god is a fool's religion: "I find Rands atheism a fools religion, and this is once again an example of a fool pushing it." Atheism is not a religion, or even a philosophy, at all, it is simply disbelief in the supernatural, as a consequence of rational thought. It says nothing about what does understand and believe and their are many different philosophies that reject the supernatural.

Your belief in the supernatural is fundamentally incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. The rejection of the irrational is not "blind prejudice" by "fools" with a competing "religion", we know exactly what we believe and why, and reject your insulting nonsense. Rejecting your faith is not "shutting down". You shut yourself down. We keep right on going without you; your faith-based ideology is cognitively irrelevant and is irrelevant to the purpose of this forum. It is dogmatic faith that is impossible to reason with.

XenokRoy,

Thank you for your response.

I am unclear as to whether you think that a creator makes the rules or, instead, is subject to them. Here you say, “I argue that if god/creator does exist he/she is also governed by the same laws of reality we are.” A few sentences later you refer to “The laws created by that creator . . . “ In a previous post you say, “for my own view rights come from a creator; they do so by a natural process that the creator created.” In your current post you say, “There are not two separate set of rules. One for us another for him.her. For this reason the existence of a creator is of no consequence to the rights of man.”

This is an important distinction because the title of this thread refers to “Creator endowed natural rights”. Most of the arguments, pro and con, are about whether rights are “creator endowed”. Some see this creator as the source of existence and the source of rights. Some of your statements appear to refer to a creator as more of an organizer of a pre-existing reality. (“To word a bit differently, I do not disagree with primacy of existence, I do however see it as a requirement that some being had to organize matter in our universe.”)

The basic issue, for me, is whether rights are an “endowment” from a creator. What are your views on this topic?

CBJ,

First I would like to thank you for the approach you have taken of attempting to explain this further. Also I do not mean any offence. I take none when people agree non-belief or however one wishes to word that there is no god.

A little background. I have read about everything Rand has written. I am a huge fan on most fronts. I do however have a complete disagreement with the idea of no creator. It rings of a complete lack of logic or rational.

I am not arguing that mans rights stands upon the will of some all-powerful supernatural being. We do not disagree on that.

I argue that if god/creator does exist he/she is also governed by the same laws of reality we are. There are not two separate set of rules. One for us another for him.her. For this reason the existence of a creator is of no consequence to the rights of man. The laws created by that creator would govern them as well and therefor can be determined by reason. It also means that Rands philosophy works just fine with a god/creator so long as that god/creator is also governed by the laws of reality as well.

To word a bit differently, I do not disagree with primacy of existence, I do however see it as a requirement that some being had to organize matter in our universe. Rand would contend that these two are incomparable. I would contend that they cannot be or the world would not be.

A certain quote by Conan Doyle comes to mind, that if often miss credited in Star Trek comes to mind for me. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." To me the world having life, based on what we know, and no mind behind it is something to be eliminated as impossible.

I could, but wont go into many scenarios that would allow for this. Many have been done in movies, books..... but that is not really important. What is important in the context of this subject is that man has rights, those rights are visible by an evaluation of existence and no government or other entity has the ability to truly remove those rights. They can put in place punishments for exercising those rights but we all still have a choice.

I got typing this morning and rambled. Hopefully it helps us to understand one and other a bit better. If not I apologize for the length of this post.

Like I said, you have not read anythign I have ever said. You see anything to do with god, or a creator and shut down.

I find it pointless to try to talk about anything else with you Ewv because you cannot use reason to get past your own blind prejudiced.

I have never said Rand's philosophy is a "fools Religion" Go look at it, you can even read it. I said the religion of atheism is a fools religion. They are two very different statements.

And proof requires knowing how to think rationally and maintaining it consistently. The faith mongers insist that existence itself is evidence of their supernatural. With that mentality anything can be rationalized as "evidence", and they do. There is a long history of this in religion trying to hijack reason as the handmaiden of faith.

Rejecting your "testimony" to your revelations of faith is not a logical fallacy and not "prejudice". The concepts of 'logical' and 'fallacy' are based on and require reason. It is the opposite of faith. You can indulge all the faith you want to, but not on this forum and not by demanding that you be taken seriously.

Reason is not a "bias". "Substantiating" requires reason and is meaningless without it. So does the concept "contradiction". Rejecting your faith is not a "contradiction". Reason is not "only one viewpoint". There is no equality of choice between reason and its opposite. Without reason no discussion is possible.

This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason . It is not the place for you to promote faith and demand that it be taken seriously as an equal in accordance with your "testimony" while you smear as dishonest those who reject it. You can do whatever you want to your own mind, but not on this forum. If you don't like that then you shouldn't be here. There are many places you can go to indulge your fantasies.

Testimonials from personal experience are not proof. If they were, then dozens of incompatible religions would be proven to be true, as well as many other assertions for which there is otherwise no evidence. Proof requires objective evidence.