Uh-oh, here's the religious thing again. Just from memory and unscientifically, as I recall the consensus was, No you can't be an Objectivist and be religious because religion is irrational. However, you can be religious and follow the concepts of Objectivism and be part of the Gulch. My advice, however would be to either drop the religion or don't start arguing religion VS atheism.
We seem to have to readdress this topic about every couple of weeks. This is certainly the wrong web site to proselytize, which is the real purpose for regurgitating the topic.
I believe many in The Gulch use religion much like the wanderer uses a compass. There is no denying Good & Evil in the world that surrounds us, as there's no denying there's a North and a South. In my opinion, the confusion for many is when that needle points in an Easterly or Westerly direction. This is where many fall back or support their thoughts and direction through the use of religion. (PS: I am a believer in THE higher power...)
That is not what Objectivism is or is defined as. No principles exist independent of human knowledge. Objectivism is not Platonism and is incompatible with religious faith.
Firstly, does religion always rely upon the existence of a deity? I can think of several examples where this is not the case. Secondly, The world as we see it appears to be the consequence of a collection of fundamental and intricate physical laws. Does this imply the existence of a supreme law giver or do we need to re examine what we mean by God? Thirdly: Atheism is based on a severe logical difficulty, that being finding a proof of the negative of a proposition. As Heinlein observed, "Atheism is just Godism turned up side down." If a religion is based on a testable set of logically defined axioms would it be anathema to Objectivism? When in doubt return to what you have accepted as first principals, examine them carefully for hidden assumptions, and then and only then draw conclusions.
After reading again through this entire thread I have come to this conclusion.
Objectivist must follow everything Ayn Rand wrote with no disagreement, just as Christians must accept the entire Bible whout question, just as Muslims must accept the entire Qur'an without question.
Any deviation from the consensus of thought by a few on here, you WILL be take to Room 101 for treatment. Independent or individual thought is not allowed. ONLY complete subjection to everything said by Ayn Rand.
Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to her philosophy. Her own philosophy is what she said it is, regardless of whatever anyone else chooses to believe. She gave explanations and reasons for her principles. If you don't want to understand and discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy with your unserious, ignorant and insulting posts then go somewhere else.
Tha's interesting I got exactly the oppositge conclusion. that each objectivist following Rules one, two and three must make up their own mind but continue to test the conclusion when anything happens to change the available information.
Be careful, that questioning, and independent thought "if" it contradicts what some here consider an absolute, is declared in essence heresy to objectivism are asked, nay demanded, to leave here, else be drawn and quarter verbally in totally emotional displays of literary license..
Had Ayn Rand been given more time, and the opportunity to experience God, She would have revised her definition of Objectivism. She just wasn't lucky enough to encounter the Creator of the universe, that's all. Everything she was, and all that she contributed to society were gifts from God. Her mortality speaks of her human condition, and that, was determined by the Almighty. Knowledge is a gift from God. Use it!
I see yet another proselytizer that is on the wrong web site. This is a site for discussion of the ideas of Ayn Rand. If you are unable to do that then you should spend your time elsewhere; we'd both be happier. If happiness is your goal, that is.
Try this as an alternative explanation: "Had Ayn Rand been given more time, and the opportunity to experience Communism, she would have revised her definition of Objectivism. She just wasn't lucky enough to encounter Karl Marx, that's all. Everything she was, and all that she contributed to society were gifts from the Proletariat. Her mortality speaks of her human condition, and that, was determined by the selfless sacrifice of others. Knowledge is a gift from the Collective. Use it!"
Ayn Rand's life and philosophy are not meaningless. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism, not a place for anti-intellectual militant religionists to emotionally denounce it with religious slogans. If there is something serious about Ayn Rand you would like to discuss then please do so, otherwise your posts do not belong here.
Also, I am asking questions...Working on sorting out my own answers based on replies to questions and queries. You constantly get offended at the mere thought of a question where you need to provide a legitimate logical answer.
Based on what you stated your life, my life anyone's life has no more meaning that the ant, or cockroach. Since at death, you gain nothing, there is neither punishment nor reward, the subsequent benefit or not to anyone you interacted with throughout your life is also meaningless since YOU are dead and gain no knowledge or satisfaction from said benefits or not, making anything you do now during your life past present or future, completely meaningless and senseless.
Previous comments...
Secondly, The world as we see it appears to be the consequence of a collection of fundamental and intricate physical laws. Does this imply the existence of a supreme law giver or do we need to re examine what we mean by God?
Thirdly: Atheism is based on a severe logical difficulty, that being finding a proof of the negative of a proposition. As Heinlein observed, "Atheism is just Godism turned up side down."
If a religion is based on a testable set of logically defined axioms would it be anathema to Objectivism?
When in doubt return to what you have accepted as first principals, examine them carefully for hidden assumptions, and then and only then draw conclusions.
Objectivist must follow everything Ayn Rand wrote with no disagreement, just as Christians must accept the entire Bible whout question, just as Muslims must accept the entire Qur'an without question.
Any deviation from the consensus of thought by a few on here, you WILL be take to Room 101 for treatment. Independent or individual thought is not allowed. ONLY complete subjection to everything said by Ayn Rand.
Sarcasm off.
1) No God, thus her life and her philosophy and everyone else's has no meaning and no purpose so who really cares.
2) God and she is experiencing something we cannot yet understand.
Only one of two end results...Is or Is Not, and until you die you will not know for sure nor can prove with 100% certainty using empirical facts.
Based on random evolution, and pure chance, with nothing beyond this life then explain to me what the purpose and point to anything really is.