IMHO Ayn Rand believed in God

Posted by ut91t05 8 years, 9 months ago to History
119 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
    More of this 'stuff'. Ayn Rand 'did not' accept any authority over her life and body. She owned herself, proudly so, without apology or excuse.

    A is A, Existence exists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 8 years, 9 months ago
    She opposed the thought of a "supernatural being" of any sort.
    Nature and the physical world was her concentration of philosophical study and direction. She stated it emphatically many times.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 9 months ago
    What kind of garbage is this?--Either someone
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 8 years, 9 months ago
    god
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      false premise is the problem The quote is . It is the love of money that is the root of all evil. the rest of your conclusion from a false start is invalid. The quote is not from Rand but from the Christian Bible and appears in other such books...as does the golden rule in different forms.

      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
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben45 8 years, 9 months ago
    To paraphrase Hillary, what difference would it make if she did believe in God? Its like the leftist who claim that she was a hypocrite for accepting money from Social Security. I don't accept their reasoning, but even if I did, if she was a hypocrite it would not matter to me. I can get value out of what she wrote, and what others have extended as part of her philosophy without any regard to her as a person.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ssadesign 8 years, 9 months ago
    Sorry to disagree. Ayn Rand believed in the supremacy of "MAN" and "his" unlimited potential.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      and independent ability to think collectively that is to say put solved pieces of a puzzle together with the independent pieces of others. True everything needed to make a light bulb was known and present but only Edison linked it altogether. The ability to build great road networks the same but only Eisenhower had the ability to those skills into a huge interstate network while the former collective of Russia awaited it's first transcontinental paved highway. They did trains though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
    I really don't think she did, sir. . she did not deal in
    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
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 8 years, 9 months ago
    Interesting.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    How does your post back up your statement? I am not an English professor, but your post doesn't support your statement. Let's look closer:
    #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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    I was a Christian way long before I first heard of Ayn Rand when the first Atlas Shrugged DVD became Netflix available.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 9 months ago
    What, then, was her god? You do know she consistently denied belief in God.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Reason. That which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom ...They have instinct we have reason the ability to think...and only that to defend sagainst claws, fangs, poisons etc. or to learn to work with them...as the case may be...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 9 months ago
        I think this reflects a degree of hubris. There is growing evidence that many of the so called "lower animals" have the ability to reason. Corvids (members of the crow family), for example exhibit communication and problem solving skills as do the cetecacians. I suggest that the difference between human intelligence and that of the other animals is more a difference of degree than of kind.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          I'm open to reading up on it., I was just following the statement of a subjective type Professor from my university days. And observing that those why quite openly demosntrate a lack of reasoning and thinking power are prone to claim 'common knowledge' and 'instinct' in it's place.' Mind you it has never been a study I found much use for having gone past it myself...and therefore....what need?

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          Is that which is even more prevalent in cetaceans and dolphins even more so or has that been included in the definition of self aware thinking. i hadn't realized any of the research had gone that far but I'd like to follow up on it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
          There is no evidence that lower animals use or require concepts to live. Primitive "problem solving" and perceptual awareness are not what is meant by man as the "rational animal".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 9 months ago
            If homo-sapiens is a product of evolution, which appears to be a gradual process that takes place over millennia, then it is reasonable to conclude that what we call "rationalism" is a capacity which also evolved. Or do you suggest that at some point there was a "singularity" where the capacity for rational thought suddenly appeared? That Is why I suggest it is a matter of difference of degree rather than kind.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
              The faculty of rationality (not rationalism) evolved as a result of its survival enhancement within an evolutionary branch, not as a continuum through all lower species. There is nothing left of the earlier stages within our branch, other than rare genetic disorders. Evolution is not an argument against the fundamental distinction between man and lower animals.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bassboat 8 years, 9 months ago
      That she did, deny God. She had to do that to be in step with her misguided belief in there not being a Creator. It was an error in her judgement and was her fatal flaw.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        Your misguided belief that you can foist your unprovable theory on others is your fatal flaw.

        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!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bassboat 8 years, 8 months ago
          Objective proof? There is plenty. Let's take just 1 piece of evidence, Jesus feeding the multitude from a few baskets of fish and bread. He fed over 5000 men plus women and children. No one who was there has come forward to refute this miracle. Just imagine if you or I tried that with 10,000 we bought off as witnesses one of them would have spilled the beans. I consider that objective thinking. You can ditto that with the 12 disciples ,11 of the 12 died a martyr's death rather than refute the deity of Jesus, the 12th being John died on an island in exile. There countless logical reasons why people have their beliefs in God. Try reading the Bible slowly and listen to it. It makes the foolish wise.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
            If you believe in that which for the most part was written 50 to a 100 years later. All fine and well if you take that and the distortions of the centuries 20 of them as 'proof' so i shall give you my version.

            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?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bassboat 8 years, 8 months ago
              If you believe in that which for the most part was written 50 to a 100 years later. All fine and well if you take that and the distortions of the centuries 20 of them as 'proof' so i shall give you my version.

              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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
                You may do so . I prayed for the pastor who told the story incorrectly. You believe your propaganda without proof I shall stick with reality and call my faith a faith where proof is not necessary. It' takes less space and wastes less time. It is completely honest. Proof where faith is concerned is not a factor to be considered. Those who have to justify their 'faith' truly live in the dark for the effort is it's own denial.
                '
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by random 8 years, 9 months ago
    You're equating her idealism with deism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      Not in the way people I talk with equate Deism. They seem to define it as the belief in a supreme being that created the universe and then has remained indifferent to it. I am saying that God is reality but needs no further defining or explanation.
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Riftsrunner 8 years, 9 months ago
        The problem with your argument is the 'supernatural' part of the definition of God. Reality is natural (thus can be quantified), so it cannot be attributed the adjective of supernatual. Also you would need to give reality consciousness in order for it to be a controller of some aspect which can be defined as divine.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 9 months ago
        Not all Deists believe in an indifferent deity. What most of us adhere to is the concept that each person is an agent of our creator, empowered with the ability to make "miracles" reality. That's been humanity's driving force since our creation, with each generation extending our technological evolution into realms once thought only possible for gods.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
    By which of the three definitions are saying she believed in god? She didn't believe in #1. So that means she couldn't believe in #2, i.e. a representation of #1.
    #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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      1 or the personification of some force
      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
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by xthinker88 8 years, 9 months ago
        No. Silly is a better term than wrong. "Wrong" implies that you actually made an argument of some sort. You did not. Pretending you did would be irrational - or silly.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 8 months ago
    Who gives a damn about your opinion? She stated clearly what she did and did not think and belief. She most certainly did not believe in God or other irrational claptrap. The standard meaning of the word is #1.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ssadesign 8 years, 8 months ago
    Ayn Rand was an amazing philosopher and presented the case for capitalism that has been irrefutable. Ayn Rand was not perfect nor did she always live up to her own ideals.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 8 years, 9 months ago
    What if we redefined God in the 10 Commandments. For instance:

    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).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      Hmmm disappeared.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 9 months ago
    From the perspective of a scientist this brings up an interesting dilemma. That there is order in the cosmos is easily observed and demonstrated. There is a natural tendency for simple systems to evolve into more complex ones. Quarks combine to form subatomic particles, subatomic particles combine to form atoms, atoms combine to form chemical compounds and so on. This phenomenon goes by many names but spontaneous order seems to be the term that is most appropriate. Originally intended for use in economics the concept has spread to physics. The question then is "what is spontaneous order and why does it exist?" The cosmos is an incredibly complex place and the existence of some sort of force that increases this complexity against all concepts of entropy is unavoidable. Some might observe that this force must be the agent of some cosmological intelligence. If so the word "God" is probably as appropriate as any. Most images of God are anthropomorphic which strikes me as naively limiting. If spontaneous order is an example of the workings of an intelligent agency the definition of deity needs to be considerably expanded.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 8 years, 9 months ago
      So is there some alternative to existence? Does
      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 8 years, 9 months ago
        2+2 = 4 is the result of the rules of a particular subset of mathematics. If a different radix is chosen the result will be quite different.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
          "2+2=4" is a true statement about the world, made possible by our ability to abstract 'units' and count them. The concepts of unit, counting, 2, 4, and elementary arithmetic, and their relation to entities in reality to do not change by using a non-decimal system to express numbers. The "results" are different when symbol or word usage changes only for those who think in floating abstractions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        of course it's called death or non-existence. but then death is a form of existence in another form. So it could be ashes.
        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 = )
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
      I just brought your score back up to zero, professor,
      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
      .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Ben45 8 years, 9 months ago
      Should people pray to this intelligent agency and think doing so could affect what happens in the future? Should people spend time worshiping this intelligent agency?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 9 months ago
        I contend that it is a tired, old social construct which
        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
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 8 years, 9 months ago
      "From the perspective of a scientist ... [E]xistence of some sort of force that increases this complexity against all concepts of entropy is unavoidable. Some might observe that this force must be the agent of some cosmological intelligence. If so the word "God" is probably as appropriate as any."

      "Intelligent design" is not the "perspective" of science.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    You can't find anything that fits the first part except full blown subjectivism. It has nothing to do with Rand and her beliefs HOWEVER as an objectivist I've often said, Thank God for Ayn Rand...Doesn't make sense...Sure does if you define God the way I do, And for me that's the only opinion that counts.

    Thus I fulfill the three laws...

    ...as have you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
      That's the point. It makes sense to define god as you stated "the way I do." Ayn subjected herself to reality and there was no need for an explanation of religious beliefs to define God. It works perfectly in objectivism, the constitution, individual liberties, etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        but old habits such as being afraid of the dark take centuries to correct. If it comforts people no problem when it interferes with the first amendment different story.

        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...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago
    She didn't believe in the God of the bible but her own words fit the definition of a god.

    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."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 8 years, 9 months ago
      To "personify" reality is to place consciousness over existence, a philosophical position that Ayn Rand opposed. "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Snezzy 8 years, 9 months ago
        Exactly. Primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence. Which is it? You cannot turn reality into consciousness by changing the word, any more than you can turn "A is A" into "A is not-A" by changing a word.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo