IMHO Ayn Rand believed in God
god
noun
1.
a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related adjective divine
2.
an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3.
any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god
noun
1.
a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force related adjective divine
2.
an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3.
any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god
Stating an opinion with nothing beyond a dictionary definition is not an argument. It is a simple statement.
A is A, Existence exists.
But there is a place for reverence in human life, for dedication to values and respect for the awesome and sublime.
Read more: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
Jan
Jan
Nature and the physical world was her concentration of philosophical study and direction. She stated it emphatically many times.
wants to just trash Ayn Rand, or to distort her into
something he wants to see her as being, so he can
fit her into the premises he already has, so he can
have her and his irrationality too.
conjecture
3. Money is the root of all evil.
To accept some concept that there is a supernatural being (god or satan) that controls part, all, or an aspect of reality is to deny that existence exists, that A is A. Miss Rand rejected any notions of mysticism and faith. Word games don't cut it.
Money is and nothing more than the accepted medium of storage and exchange representing the labor put forth by an individual or entity and wealth the follow on is money in excess of current need. the amount that can be saved, invested or used for any form of later need.
Nothing hard about it if you studied real economics.
or just read Hazlitt
the supernatural or deities, since they are not measurable
nor available for rational analysis. . unfortunately, in
my humble opinion, she rejected out-of-hand anyone
who associated with religion in any way which implied
agreement, neglecting the fact that many people
have no other way to express themselves. . they
haven't learned the rational language which she
knew so very well. . and many would instantly fall
for objectivism if they understood. -- j
.
Just last night I was surfing on my web tv and settled on watching Zeitgeist. Ever see that movie? It's thought-provoking. I had seen it a few years ago. The comparison of different religions in that movie is enlightening.
I grew up going to a Baptist church. But, the hypocrisy I saw from the members and others who called themselves Christians drove me away from organized religion forever. It's clear to me in my adult life the churches are just a tool of the establishment, of the government, to control the masses. Pretty depressing to think about.
#1 A non-radical definition of God. OK so far.
#2 A further description rounding off #1.
#3 Huh? When my boys were born their grandparents, parents, uncles and cousins gave them excessive attention. They knew nothing of money and were not worshipped. Are you inferring Rand worshipped money? If so, your #3 is pretty convoluted. But if there's any proof of it, can you cite anything in her fiction or fact that indicates such an attitude? Perhaps it is the use of the dollar sign as a symbol? If you understood what you were reading, you would know that it had very much less to do with money per se, than it did with economics and the contrast between capitalism and all other economic "isms."
I can only conclude that you neither understand Rand, Objectivism, Objectivists and probably neither philosophy nor economics. However, I invite you to stick around. You might learn something.
I still am. That's a fact.
That being said, I have not read anything written by her to to indicate she believed in anything supernatural.
Up until now, I have not read anything about her indicating that either.
A fact is a fact is a fact.
Your suggestion that there is a third level or degree sparks interest ....i'd like to resource that . i't s the open objectivist side of me.
It is your business and those who trained you.
Had she denied her 'God it would be her own mind and ability to reason and think. Yours is having never discovered that ability so you turn to someone else's opinion as if it were Gospel. In reality it's only your business.
So I shall not try to foist my opinion of that particular form of being afraid of the dark. And yes I know my Creator...but that's my business.
Independent thinking is hard when one was brought up under denying that ability. It's not for everyone. Perhaps... not even for me.
Unless of course you can do what so far has been impossible to mankind and offer objective proof of your particular theory.
Enjoy your day but ...be careful when the shadows gather...Boo!
Quote from a Sunday school class for adults. Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb the entrance covered by a huge rock that could not be moved. His dressings or wrappings were changed daily by the women of the church... and on the third day they saw his body was not in the tomb but had risen...
Were the women then buried with him and the rock somehow moved....etc etc etc.
Not at all the passage being taught.
the point is the class left believing the women had been buried with him for the three days.
It's that easy to make a significant change. It's done constantly by advertising and political media ...so you have presented no objective proof but i have seen and heard multitudes of subject stories.
Never mind the different versions in the multitude of different christian sects, divisions, churches etc.
So which should we believe?
Yours?
Why?
What makes you so special.
Of the twelve disciples was not one the one that betrayed Him? How then did Judas deserve a martyrs death? there are countless logical reasons why people have their beliefs multiplied by the nine monotheistic religions soon to be ten. According to each of them except one all the rest are foolish.
And you as a believer did not see the inconsistencies and search out a valid version.
I received the above with a more believable answer from my Uncle 40 years a missionary in the Central African Republic. he was the first to admit that the only way to accept the stores was on 'faith' and faith needs no proof objective or otherwise...
personally I like the Don Imus version which used two cans of imported sardines and one loaf of Roman Meal bread. imust had a wayh of making the foolish wise.
The answer is there is no need for proof if you accept something on faith and faith alone. Now I will give you two modern examples.
Benito Mussolini as head of the Italian Socialist party and before their conversion to National Socialism from International socialism (along with secular progressives three of the great nonotheistic belief systems) asked Lenin how to explain or teach Marxist Economics. Lenin answered one does not teach it one preaches it; Until it is accepted and taken on faith and faith alone without reservation or explanation. But for those who demand proof say unto them. Not all are blessed with the wisdom to understand but the Party has those who are busy doing nothing else and they will guide you and in time.....(the Plato answer).
The last version example?
Balanced Budget with a surplus.
In days with few literate people faith was necessary. In these modern days nothing has changed.
The reason for that is still a need to be unafraid of the dark when there is no ability to turn on a switch and shine the light. But the education switch is 'off.'
What is my religion? Read the First Amendment and be ashamed you asked?
Bass boat:Since when does time altar the truth? This and others were observable events that have not been disputed. Remember Moses and the parting of the Red Sea? I guess you explain that away by time too.
Quote from a Sunday school class for adults. Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb the entrance covered by a huge rock that could not be moved. His dressings or wrappings were changed daily by the women of the church... and on the third day they saw his body was not in the tomb but had risen...
Bassboat: You omit the part about the guards that were guarding the tomb by the penalty of death should someone mess with the tomb. And it wasn't 1 guard either.
Were the women then buried with him and the rock somehow moved....etc etc etc.
Bassboat: "somehow moved"? 3 women moving a huge boulder? Unlikely and then throw in the guards......
Not at all the passage being taught.
the point is the class left believing the women had been buried with him for the three days.
It's that easy to make a significant change. It's done constantly by advertising and political media ...so you have presented no objective proof but i have seen and heard multitudes of subject stories.
Bassboat: Objective proof? How about Jesus returning and being witnessed by over 500 people at one event.
Never mind the different versions in the multitude of different christian sects, divisions, churches etc.
So which should we believe?
Bassboat: You should understand that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus. He alone atoned for your sins and mine. To believe in Him and confess our sins we will be saved for all eternity. It might be fun to be a pseudo intellectual that demands Jesus to appear like a Genie and do a miracles but that has already been accomplished.
Yours?
Why?
What makes you so special. I am not special in anyone's eyes except God's eyes.
Of the twelve disciples was not one the one that betrayed Him? How then did Judas deserve a martyrs death? there are countless logical reasons why people have their beliefs multiplied by the nine monotheistic religions soon to be ten. According to each of them except one all the rest are foolish.
Bassboat: Judas did not have a martyr's death, He hung himself in disgrace. The difference in the religions of the world is that Christianity serves a Living God, the rest do not so how could they be God? They are philosophies.
And you as a believer did not see the inconsistencies and search out a valid version.
Bassboat:
I feel as though you have never read the Bible. Get a modern day translation and read it slowly and allow the Lord to speak to you. Don't be afraid of what you don't know.
I received the above with a more believable answer from my Uncle 40 years a missionary in the Central African Republic. he was the first to admit that the only way to accept the stores was on 'faith' and faith needs no proof objective or otherwise..
Bass boat: The Lord said that blessed are those who have not seen but believe. This was when Thomas of Doubting Thomas fame insisted on seeing Jesus in person before he would believe. when he met up with Jesus he immediately fell to his knees and worshiped Him.
personally I like the Don Imus version which used two cans of imported sardines and one loaf of Roman Meal bread. imust had a wayh of making the foolish wise.
Bassboat, You have it wrong, the Bible clearly says that the Bible will make the foolish wise. Read it and you will find answer to your deepest problems.
The answer is there is no need for proof if you accept something on faith and faith alone. Now I will give you two modern examples.
Benito Mussolini as head of the Italian Socialist party and before their conversion to National Socialism from International socialism (along with secular progressives three of the great nonotheistic belief systems) asked Lenin how to explain or teach Marxist Economics. Lenin answered one does not teach it one preaches it; Until it is accepted and taken on faith and faith alone without reservation or explanation. But for those who demand proof say unto them. Not all are blessed with the wisdom to understand but the Party has those who are busy doing nothing else and they will guide you and in time.....(the Plato answer).
Bassboat: Once again this is not a religion but propaganda repeated over and over, it is a philosophy, not a religion.
The last version example?
Balanced Budget with a surplus.
In days with few literate people faith was necessary. In these modern days nothing has changed.
Bassboat: Literate people are the reason for the advancement the Faith.
The reason for that is still a need to be unafraid of the dark when there is no ability to turn on a switch and shine the light. But the education switch is 'off.'
Bassboat: Christians don't have to worry about the dark, it is the unsaved ones.
What is my religion? Read the First Amendment and be ashamed you asked?
I wish we were able to exchange views over a cup of coffee. I will pray for you.
'
Steven Hawking has stated that God is not necessary for the universe to exist and stated that he is in search of the information to answer how and why it exists, maybe God is simply that information, maybe God is simply an idea, maybe God is nature, maybe God is the God of the Bible, Koran, etc., maybe God is you, but trying to define God or deny God as existing only hinders your ability have authority over yourself, exercise freewill, or deal without prejudice with others.
Accepting reality is one of the rules not the rule
you might want to read a little bit more before juming off a bridge.
A Deists prayers are never in supplication, but in thanks for the gifts God has given us to raise the material wealth of most of humanity far beyond mere existence.
#3 is depends on a value judgement of "excessive". So if you think I watch too much Star Trek, then Star Trek would be my "god" by your reckoning. That doesn't mean I believe in supernatural beings.
I'd say reality is a pretty strong force
I'd say the laws of nature are a pretty strong force
I'd say the freewill of the human mind is a pretty strong force
I'd say that #3 in no way requires the belief of supernatural beings
That dictionaries are corrupt enough to list every way anyone uses a word, no matter how questionable, is a different problem.
Posting something like this here in a group full of people well versed in what Ayn Rand taught is nothing more than baiting. If this group was a bit more decently moderate it would not be allowed imho.
Whether one believes in a higher power or not should not affect one's ability to live a more productive and ethical life through her writings.
1. I (myself) am the Lord, thy (my) God
2. Thou (I) shalt have no other gods before me (myself) - In other words, pay attention to your needs, before those of others.
3. Thou (I) shalt not make unto thee (myself), any graven image - No worship of gods like the Sun, the Moon, animals, etc. which are many times idolized.
4. Thou (I) shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God (myself), in vain - No disrespecting yourself.
5. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy - Take one day off, a week, to rest and contemplate the rest of your life.
The rest of the Commandments are basic rules of life.
If viewed in this manner, removing "religion" from them, I don't see why the 10 Commandments couldn't be a solid set of rules to live by, for those who don't believe.
I am not trying to re-write the Commandments for those who do believe in a God...I'm just trying to show that they can apply to all of us, if taken in the proper context. Perhaps Ayn Rand even contemplated this...where it might have looked she believed in God, when she really didn't (I'm not saying if she did or did not).
An easier approach for a trial run would be the Golden Rule present in all nine of the worlds monotheistic religions.One, maybe two follow it.
some God have to stand over 2+2 to make it=4?
Is there some alternative to the irrefutable axiom
that "A us A"? --More nonsense.
three great constant values
Birth Life Death
One per customer
Some might put it differently but evenso it all adds up to the same 1+1+1 = 0
Alternative postulate is 1 +0+1 = )
which we use, which are unable to contain the ideas
which ProfChuck was alluding to -- the natural increase
in order which we observe. -- j
.
and that is an increase in order, IMHO. -- j
.
increase in order is the amazing thing! -- j
.
since the subject does deserve consideration in the
way you have indicated -- IMHO. . the fact that order
can naturally arise out of disorder is fascinating. . we
humans are our closest proof, yet the cosmos holds
so much more which we hope to discover. . we have
no language for the unknown, and humankind has
used terms like God for centuries. . why not? . the
problem arises when it's used for human abuse or
for the discouragement of rational thought. -- j
.
Misusing language with words for the supernatural is abuse of rational thought.
and free of the connotation "supernatural." -- j
.
as someone else would like to see it. -- j
.
is used to identify meditation and subconscious personal
conference in preparation for action. . the words which
we have come to use don't work very well. -- j
.
Should people listen when some try to recruit me?
Not their business
"Intelligent design" is not the "perspective" of science.
Thus I fulfill the three laws...
...as have you.
We all want to know which party the candidate judge or sheriff belongs to in these so called non partisan races. but once we know it we know all we need to know. the rest is immaterial and irrelevant.
the dark by the way is too be found way over to the left and you should be afraid. they believe in no religion at all. The last time they got in charge we had gas chambers and furnaces...
Reality — that which exists — has no alternatives, no competitors, nothing “transcending” it.
from: aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy#metaphys...
Replace the word reality with God and you have from the definition "the personification of some force" and "any person or thing to which excess attention is given."
Of course, I don't recognize what she "worshiped" as God, or as any lesser god.
God as you describe (him,her,it) does not have a specific nature or identity, and "excess attention" is a subjective term and an attribute of consciousness rather than existence.
Either our words have meaning or they do not. If I can say, "Rand believed in reality, which is the same as God," in contradiction to her own statements, then I might as well say that she said, "You really can't know anything," even though she did not.
The claim that she believed in God is not only false, but pernicious. It is either mistaken at a fundamental level or it is a deliberate lie.
Load more comments...