The sanction of the victim leads to and encourages 'highway robbery'. Socialism is for those who take their altruism seriously.

Mimi: "... they aren’t addressing the fundamental questions to why man created religion in the first place."

Ayn Rand did address why religion was created. It is a primitive form of philosophy and every human being requires a philosophy in some form to integrate his ideas and observations. As conceptual beings who must use our rational minds for survival we can't live range of the moment jumping from one thought to another with no connection, coherence or explanation. See her essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life", republished in her anthology The Romantic Manifesto. It should have also been included in the more recent Philosophy: Who Needs It?.

So what? Accomplishments are made despite religion.

You _should_ be teaching them rational ideas.

The difference is a lot more fundamental than politics.

Yes, it's a false definition of religion, which requires faith, belief in the supernatural, and sacrifice as essential.

Well said, conscious1978.

I did not say there was logic in Adams' statement above. I just said that it was interesting to juxtapose John Adams and George Will's statements. On the face of it, they don't look all that different, but when you examine them closely, they are nearly complete opposites. I agree with George Will on this one.

I agree, khalling. This is precisely why I have said that a Christian cannot be an Objectivist, and vice versa. There can be many views that Christians and Objectivists agree upon, but their premises are different. Thus, they will definitely be mutually exclusive, despite what some Gulchers think.

Hey kh,
This is an excellent post with awesome comments from new comers. Good work! :)

Hear Hear. "...Divine Authority is the end-all explanation and moral justification for everything"... I'm using that!

See Barwick 11.

I'll go with that..to an extent

+1

I agree. but I'm still not talking to you

objectivists do not celebrate a man living for another man (or god). Promises of future whatever is not fact

it is an emotive comment. there is no logic in it

Thanks, CG.

Close but not exactly. A Christian accepts the existence of a supernatural entity based on incomplete evidence and bases some of what else they believe upon that belief.

Well said, puzzlelady. :)

Come to think of it, I heard that argument made by someone of one Christian group talking about its superiority over other Christian groups, and that was Year 1980 in Laurel, Mississippi. Thanks for fully jogging this old dino's memory.

"...it can be practiced in a way that is non-contradictory (provided that one is not at the same time an Objectivist because Galt's oath becomes a major problem)."

Galt's oath is the denial of altruism; e.g. his unwillingness to accept the sanction of the victim. I can think of something even more fundamental: one cannot be both a Christian and Objectivist because the Christian accepts the existence of a supernatural entity on faith and bases everything else upon that belief, and the Objectivist rejects the supernatural entirely.

Is the warning "don't follow logical reasoning based on the results of experimentaiton"?

I use the word very selectively and quite rarely. It seemed appropriate in this context.

"Just when they are beginning to discover the wonder of the world, we scare the hell out of them with the Devil and saddle them with Original Sin"
Yes. I am atheist, but my kids know the people think the Devil punishes evil-doers and that there's no evidence for this. My son is interested, and my daughter doesn't care. I try really hard not to give them any of my ideas. They don't know for sure what I think of politicians or anything I think is controversial. They'll figure out the world based on reason and facts.