"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for another man's sake nor ask him to live for mine".

Now, doesn't the fundamental doctrine of Christianity hold that are born deficient and that you must be saved by having another (Jesus) who lived for your sake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ-YqOn...

What is the evidence that it was created? We know from science matter can not be created or destroyed.

Capitalism is merely the society-wide application of the idea of self-ownership, and its implications upon the material world (material property).

It's impossible to reconcile them. Altruism is the irreconcilable conflict.

I wrote something big to counter each of your points but then deleted it. Your reply does not really alter or counter any of my original arguments.

Evil is still determined by the mind, not be religion or science. No additional arguments are needed.

The pieces of this puzzel fit so well together that I, myself, believe that the universe was not an accident. Building a VW is not an accident, people created it. Do you think that a VW could have existed in nature or was it created. How about a tree. Can anyone out there create a tree. Or a baby from scratch. I believe, yes, I believe in a supreme being or intellgence whatever it is. Kal

Libertarianism is simply the idea of individual rights and the non-aggression principle, so yes it is "compatible" with any religion that doesn't demand that you personally commit aggression. If a libertarian were living, however, under edicts of the Old Testament God who commanded his people to kill all the survivors of the canaanite tribes, then at that point it would not be compatible.

Objectivism much more than "libertarianism" because it is a whole systematic philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) whereas liberarianism is just a determination about ethics as relating to gov't. Objectivism is not compatible with any religion that asserts the mystical or upholds belief in the absence of perceptive evidence and/or reason.

I see your point, it's hard to get people behind your movement of their going to start misrepresenting your platform. Then they bring others in and so on until you've essentially been hijacked or splintered.

It's essential to keep things simple, and the non-aggression pact needs to be the only basis to both let the majority in and keep personal differences out.

True enough. We all easily agree that the PERSON is good or evil and finds JUSTIFICATION in religion for their actions.

The Scientific Method - five steps, nine or fourteen - is the process for creating and validating true claims. Where is the Religious Method?

In Atlas Shrugged "Project X" was a betrayal of science. When a suicide bomber kills people in the mosque of another sect, where is the betrayal of religion?

Whether Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland or Druse versus Marianist versus Hezbollah versus Hamas in Beirut, no standard of truth exists.

Show us where the students of Linus Pauling blew themselves up to destroy the people working in the laboratories of Crick and Watson because they disagreed about the structure of DNA.

You are a good person. But religion can be used for evil. Science cannot.

Science can be betrayed. One of my specialities is misconduct in scientific research. Easily 20% of scientists are crooks. But that is betrayal. Show us where the religious leader betrays religion by calling for martyrs.

Certainly blogger "Vox Day" (voxday.blogspot.com) thinks they're compatible; he bills himself as a Christian libertarian. And to turn it around, atheists are quite comfortable with authoritarian beliefs. Try going to Pharyngula (freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula, an atheist site largely devoted to debunking Creationism and explaining evolution) and mentioning you're a libertarian or Objectivist. Have your virtual umbrella handy, because it'll set off a shitstorm.

Organized religions tend to be more about organization and authority than about God. Deism, which is by its nature "unorganized", is one religion that should have the least conflict with Libertarianism. Deism, which has as its sole divine direction the belief that you should leave the world a better place than when you arrived, as much as possible, seemed to suit several of our nation's Founders, who were also very Libertarian in their beliefs.

Anyone who claims to understand and embrace Ayn Rand's philosophy, but has blind faith in an all-powerful invisible god, somewhere up there...has not grasped the fundamental axioms of existence and is not committed to reality and reason as absolutes. Faith and reason are just not compatible...period.

I think this goes both ways. When the Alaskan governess got involved with the tea party it started to loose ground. Why? She forgot what it was about when she brought up anti-abortion at a tea party convention. That movement like the libertarian party is about small government and having the government tell doctors yes they have to do them, or women no they cant have them is just the opposite.

There are people from every walk of life that want free agency. The ability to choose for themselves on all maters that do not involve the use of force on another person. Shortening the net to exclude religion would simply be foolish.


Libertarians are completely comparable with religion as long as they do not go the path the the republicans before them. Small government and free agency (individual choice) must be the trump card over personal bias.

"If the almighty dollar becomes the WHY of capitalism, is not that idol worship in and of itself?"
first of all, idolatry is a Christian concept and NOT part of Objectivism . Rand:
"The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man."
the pursuit of money in a free society is to pursue creation and trade-those who do not pursue money-trade people and use force
Money is a medium of exchange-a tool. Two people decide to engage in a transaction that is mutually beneficial to both parties. Murder for hire is not consistent with capitalism, for example.

If by compatible, you mean can they coexist, I don't see why not.

Certainly. Of course some religions have tenets that are not compatible and some organized religions presents additional complications, but in general the belief in a supernatural power is not in itself exclusionary.

Science is the how of doing things. Religion is the why. I think highly of Michael Crichton's observation noted in Jurassic Park "Yeah, but your scientists were so busy trying to figure out if they COULD, they never stopped to think if they SHOULD."

Ayn Rand's open hostility to religion deprives her of the WHY of doing things. If the almighty dollar becomes the WHY of capitalism, is not that idol worship in and of itself?

Now don't misunderstand me, I in no way approve of the behaviors Rand specifically criticized in "Atlas Shrugged" - the moocher mindset. I believe very firmly that the principle of being rewarded for one's actions is not only a good principle of finance, but also for life in general and in no way detracts from religious value. But I believe that if you make money the object for productivity, you are in effect setting up money as your god and are creating your own downfall, just of a different kind. The drive to be productive is admirable, but if money is all you care about, you also lose the part of the argument Galt makes about money being a symbol of productivity and pervert it into being the object, destroying the symbology entirely.

"The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values? "
and that is why Man needs values.

"Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"
The Virtue of Selfishness

It sure is good to hear from you XenokRoy.
Regards,
O.A.

Not only will I admit it, but its even in the bible, more clearly in the book of Mormon. It states people would go around in his name (gods or Christs depending on where you read it at) and call good evil and evil good. They do, always have and always will.

you have to admit there is a lot of chasing the good with the bad in religion

You have a contradiction in your comparisons.

You compare a collective (religion) as bad to individuals as good.

Religion is a tool of the mind, like anything else that requires thought. It can be used for both good and evil. Do people use science to accomplish evil? To say they do not is absolute rubbish.

Good people are good and constantly attempting to be better. Those that are bad choose to be bad, and will use the tools they can to accomplish there bad designs.

Religion has no more ability to be bad or good than science or philosophy. It is what a persons mind does with it that makes it bad or good. To state religion is bad is the same as stating philosophy is bad. Individuals are bad or good. Exactly what is bad or good can be determined by the results that individuals actions achieve, and nothing else.

have people used religion for evil. Over and over again. have they also used it for good. Over and over again. Both will continue to be true no matter what the piece of knowledge is or what its called. It is the mind that determines how it is used and the consequence of the actions that determines if that use was good or bad.