and Jainism and Zoroastrianism and ...

The list of the world's religions is nearly endless. Alas, my willingness to participate is not.

From the Reading list of Steve Jobs post:

"RE: Reincarntaon
'There are two things most people think they know about Buddhism -- that Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and that all Buddhists are vegetarian. These two statements are not true, however. Buddhist teachings on rebirth are considerably different from what most people call "reincarnation."' (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)

"... the Buddha did not teach a doctrine of reincarnation. For one thing, he taught there was no soul to transmigrate." from Misunderstanding Buddhism (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhi......)

RE: "Rejecting the self"
There are different interpretations to this, but in one sense, it's not that there is no self, but rather that self is not all there is. In another sense, "no-self" is about rejecting the idea of the inner-self, or what religionists refer to as "the soul."

EDIT: Added a sentence for clarity. "

sdesapio

OK, but I read the first 25% of The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche. That's all I could take - and that was years before I discovered Ayn Rand. Mysticism, mumbo jumbo and utter bullshit. I will refer you specifically to Part III, Death and Rebirth, p261.

"Padmasambhava says: All beings have lived and died and been reborn countless times."

Reincarnation refutation refuted.

I just read that and it made no sense to me. Maybe it would make more sense if I read the full texts. It sounds like it is saying God is impossible and illogical, but there is no proof or sound logical argument for that conclusion. They seem to be saying since I do not understand how it could be, it can not be. Which of course proves nothing.

In my opinion, people that try to act like god can not exist is just as illogical as those that are certain God does exist. Neither can prove their point so neither should act like they are certain. I think being ardent that God does not exists is actually just like believing in God. In both cases a belief is being purported as unquestionable, but in both cases there is no proof. They only logical thing is to admit that you don't know, but will take your best guess. At least that is the conclusion I have come to over and over again through my 47 years of life.

The reincarnation hook has been refuted in another post...it is just the opposite: Buddha said this is your only life, live it up!
Kidding, he said use your life positively and with insight (or something like that).

Buddhism has no deity but it's loaded with mysticism. Reincarnation, anyone?

jerry; I certainly don't intend to send any arrows your way, heck I don't even have a bow. And I certainly don't intend to imply that anyone can or should control what you believe. But the point of the post seemed to me to be about a possible combination of Objectivist philosophy and religion beliefs.

If you investigate Objectivism, I'm convinced that you will find it to be a complete, consistent, and human based philosophy based in reality. And AR did an excellent job of deriving and explaining the morals necessary for life within and from that philosophy that deals strictly with what is, not what is not. From your comment, you apparently believe that humans are born with no morals and such must be instilled. Objectivism's morals are evident from living as a human within what is, and instilled morals from a super being aren't necessary nor rationally logical and simply confuse the issue.

It strikes me that you're wanting to ask/answer 'What caused existence', But again, existence is not an effect or event. It is a word, concept, used to describe what is. The only things excluded from that concept are things that are not, imaginary mystical non-real.

Within Objectivity, there is simply no need nor way nor reason to be talking about what is not. Objectivity is a philosophy concerned with what is--reality--those parts and components that either effect a man or that he can effect. Neither I nor anyone else can ever say anything about what is not, it has no attributes nor identity.

What is not can't cause anything nor can it have an effect on what is. What is not doesn't exist.

True enough -- but it remains a theory that just happens (by design) to explain the observations. As you probably are aware there are other competing theories. But all of them are difficult to prove or disprove.

Can one admire Rand for her thinking? Absolutely. Can one agree 100% with her? Nope - because she openly advocates for atheism and you'd have to pick a side.

If you want to be a Christian and follow the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand my question is simple: It's not who's going to let you. Who's going to stop you?

Well this is going to send a barrage of arrows ;-) my way but what the heck.
I too am a believer in most of AR's philosophy, But I also am a Christian. I am not as philosophically astute as a lot of you, but I try to keep an open mind as I believe we all have free will and I am a staunch believer in individual liberty.
For example one of the cornerstones of her philosophy as I see it is an impeccable moral character, to treat each other fairly and with mutual respect. But to me the question is where does this moral character come from. How do we have a sense of right or wrong whether a believer or not. That had to be instilled in each of us somehow. I am sure that many have heard the justifications for the existence of God, How do we know there is air, none of us can see it, but we accept it is there.
I find it to be an exercise of faith to believe that this world and all of its inhabits, humans and otherwise came into existence from nothing..
I really am not trying to start a verbal war here but I find it very difficult to say that if you are a Christian you cannot believe in ARs writings and beliefs.

Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged provided the rational foundation for ethics. No longer do we need to have a belief in some god and say these are the rules to live by. I do believe anybody who has read her work carefully and has understood what she said, is on the road to atheism if not already no. It is a blessed state of mind. No cloudiness, no confusion, and life is suddenly far more beautiful, because you know that's all there is--appreciate it now.

Yes!

Yes! Wonderful, joyous, breaking free argument!

Jml posted it farther up in the thread :)

Ah, yes! That was in the Intellectual Ammunition Department of the Objectivist Newsletter, wasn't it?

Did I mention anywhere that I did not have faith? I have faith. I believe in God, I am just not convinced that every story in the bible is true. I don't see how that gives me a lack of faith. The bible was written and edited by the hand of man, was it not? So how can we completely believe that it is completely true? Your answer is by faith. My answer is that it is a good book, I have studied it, not well enough to quote it, but I understand its teachings. I also refuse to go sit in church, I stay busy running my infant businesses and with my family and farm. I see no point in sitting in a room full of people pressed and dressed for 5 hours on Sunday to prove my faith. The world is my church. If I need to feel his presence I go out side and witness the beauty of the world he created. I feel that I am closer to God than any of those in a pew will ever be.

Ayn could be taught and corrected. She just would have to wait until someone smarter than her or someone with more experience could convince her otherwise. Since few people could equal her intelligence she would probably enjoy THE Great Mind.
I still hold out hope.