I just re-read this comment, and discovered the brilliance of it the second time around. I think the point you are trying to make is that religion was not very important to Rand, but her detractors use her anti-religious remarks to scare away others who might otherwise agree with her philosophy. If that is the point you are trying to make, it is a brilliant one that I hadn't thought of. By discussing her beliefs on religion, I am, inadvertently, contributing to her detractors. I hadn't thought of that, but on second thought, it is very true. Whenever I try to discuss Rand with anyone who doesn't agree with her, they inevitably try to steer the conversation to her atheist beliefs, and question how I could ever support someone like that.

we try, Matcha;;; we try. . Thank You.

I inadvertently left out the estimation
that I might have more frequent positive
influences on people by knowing and
using the "predominant" language here. -- j

Thank you, Tech;;; it's only natural -- just think of
the laws of probability and estimate how all of this
must have evolved . . . . WoW!!! -- j

Xenok, we're in agreement that our lives are awesome and yes we can differ. In many ways, that difference may be one of our best attributes.

Perhaps, if you take this post out of the context of the many others I have made on this subject. In context the only thing on the list that shows its existence by its creation (the earth) and the fact that a mind is required to create anything of any use is god. The rest have no such evidence.

You too may believe in the irrational if you wish, such as roads building themselves.

Isn't it great to be in a world where for the most part we can both believe in something the other thinks to be irrational? I for one am glad to be in such a place.

Even more important is the ability for us to exist with one and other without initiating force on and and other even though we both look at the other person and think they are irrational in some way?

Hello K,

I think that we know that there existed a common predecessor to chimpanzees, gorillas and humans. It is virtually certain, form what I have learned, that at the beginning of any branching of species, there is still mating and mixing of genetic packages, i.e. it is a gradual separation, not very neat. Thus, tracing direct lineages is not easy or fast.

We know that early humans mated with Neanderthals. I am sure you know about fast differentiations among bird species in Galapagos.

If you hope to see a bird evolve into an elephant, or a lamb into a wolf, I would think you should give up ;-)

P.S. I do not mean any offense whatsoever.

KSilver: I admire your search. Your investigation will lead you to more understanding. I repeat, I think you are getting warmer...
Hang in there!

Hello, B,

"If Objectivism is the search for truth, it should not count out ANYTHING unless there is specific proof that it can not be."

Objectivism is a philosophy, not just "the search for truth". The way you phrase this, to me, implies that Objectivism is, in your opinion, in search of the truth about existence of God. It is enormously more than that.

Also, you are asking for proof that God does not exist. In my opinion, that is an impossible task. It is your task to prove that He does.

Just my opinions.

Gospel of Thomas is number one followed by Gospel of Philip, the essay The Thunder; Perfect Mind, and the Pistis Sophia. The Pistis Sophia is best read drunk or stoned.

Man is meant to learn throughout his life. Not just in one area but all areas. If you apply the structure necessary to run a successful company to your home life I fear you would fail at marriage and parenting. You are one thing one place and something else in another. Anyone posting who has run a successful business and created a lasting home life? When I worked I felt mentally different. I talked and acted different. There is a place aside from work for a totally different mindset. I guess the women reading this will be disgusted but I want my husband to know how much I value him and I try to do everything I can to show him. I think in Rand's book he would be Hank Reardon. Don't think I'm crazy, the only romance I ever enjoyed in any book was in Rand's writings. I guess my point is that life is not just one thing. Thinking about religion, thinking about how it could be something you believe in because you were taught to believe in it is a good thing. Your conclusion is yours. You don't have to accept someone else's. To me that is the real gift Rand gave us. She taught us to evaluate our beliefs. Every hero she gave us someone we could possibly become. Her books have a message we all need to consider. In regards to the Bible I feel the same way. Organized religion that is limiting of freedom of thought and action would not work for me.

j; Faith is something that is based on demonstrations of actions prior to now from a person or event. I have faith that when I wet two of my fingers and stick them into an electrical socket, I'm going to get the pee shocked out of me. I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning and can even predict with near perfect precision exactly when that'll happen.

But faith in a god is 'wanting' something to happen or be true because it makes one feel more secure, that one doesn't have to rely on his senses and reasoning ability, that one doesn't have to fear his own death or that of his loved ones, etc.

As to AR's default position--I find no evidence that big foot exists and any that believe that and try to convince me of it are going to have to provide proof of such in order to make me believe it. It's not my responsibility to prove to them that he doesn't exist.

Your arguments applies not only to your belief in a god but as well to dragons, fairies, leprechauns, goblins, trolls, vampires, werewolves, boogiemen, the sandman, Santa Claus, elves, gremlins, Freddie on Elm St., yetis, big foot, ghosts, demons, telekinesis, mind reading,--shall we go on.

Believe in the irrational if you wish, but if my virgin daughter shows up pregnant, I'm going to run some DNA tests and check every young stud in the neighborhood.

+1 For retaining your sense of wonder

Beautifully written.

Good post.

I don't have a problem with thinking Ayn Rand and her philosophy are brilliant and the teachings of Christ are wonderful. Before any of you think I haven't thought about all the issues with religion that you could possibly throw at me I want to say any thinking person would have asked these questions themselves. I may have issue with organized religion but not with the concept with the teachings of Christ. Please don't abandon us because we don't agree with your concept of Objectivism. Do you think some people are fundamentalist Objectivists? Any deviation from their interpretation must be wrong. I was actually taught all the principals of I rediscovered in Objectivism in my childhood community when I was a child. These include the responsibility of work, going beyond what is expected at work, being honest, and respect for your employer. Welfare was a no no. The churches reinforced these values. While I no longer think these values exist in the same way now I can say they did and it was a loss when things changed. What is going to provide these lessons now? Do you really speak to many young people? They are lost. Most do not desire material wealth. I promise you Ayn Rand, the Constitution and the dangers of organized religion were dinner time conversation at my table. Add to that several Ayn Rand loving PHD's to the mix and this 20 something generation just doesn't get it. Now my son on the other hand, PHD from MIT, now in final month of law school, raised his children in a private school with a slight religious bent and these kids think more like we do. I'm a little slow but I can see what made a difference. I'm just saying maybe you are being too extreme.

j, why not give both definitions, because I'm not sure I'll agree with your Objectivist definition.
The overwhelming evidence scientifically is that there is no super-natural being running things. Scientific burden of proof falls on those who make extraordinary claims. There must be extraordinary evidence for those claims. In science, we would not say something existed without evidence for it.

I consider the Objectivist ideals and philosophy as a rationale for rational political structure and rational economics. I simply set aside the atheism. However, I do not apply the Objectivist ideals in a theistic manner, either. In my personal life, I apply my religious ideals, in my personal dealings with others.

XenokRoy, Objectivists use Ayn Rand's definition of atheism rather than the definition that is generally accepted in dictionaries. Ms. Rand was quite clever in defining her term such that she didn't have to have faith to believe that there is no god. I have had this argument with numerous people in this forum. By her definition, Ms. Rand has successfully positioned herself into a default position where she has to prove nothing, whereas atheists who state unequivocally that there is no god have a burden of proof. Very clever on her part.

How is the nonexistence of god any more rational than the existence of god. Both have to be taken on faith. I would argue that Atheism is completely irrational. No road build itself, no building builds itself, but yet all of space and the earth did? Irrational based on everything we know from my perspective.

I can accept that perhaps the mind behind creating a system with the fault tolerances and long term life our planet provides has left is no where around, but in my view to say that it "just happened" is completely irrational.

Here is the crux of the matter their is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god. Practicing the religion of atheism, Christianity, Buddhism or Hindu all require faith. Those that do any of them rationally are looking to constantly remove as much of the required "Faith/Confidence" and turn it into knowledge as they can, but until all things can be proven faith is required for those that cannot.

And yet again you continue to define faith using an anti-definition (a logical fallacy) - the opposite of reason. Again you choose to entirely frame the debate within the constricting confines of what Rand chose to _believe_ ie have faith in - ironically about faith itself. She is welcome to her opinion and you are welcome to yours, but I reject Rand as an authority on faith. She has neither the standing nor the experience to define the debate on the matter and I reject all such. I will also say that other philosophers such as Kant, Aquinas, and others similarly lack the standing with which to do anything more than present their opinion. I am not beholden to any of them and do not accept any of them as my representative on the matter. I speak for myself on behalf of myself and my personal experience.

If Objectivism is the search for truth, it should not count out ANYTHING unless there is specific proof that it can not be. The possibilities should remain open to exploration. To the intellectually honest, the argument against God at its most substantiated is that of "I don't know". For those who choose to test the hypothesis of faith to learn that God does in fact exist, the answer comes only after study and unprejudiced searching. I know that from personal fact. And I can not refute the evidence of my experiences any more than I can refute the sun rising in the morning.

It takes just as much faith to believe in God as it does not to. Either way you are initially accepting someone else's opinion on the matter. What you do from that point on is up to you. Ultimately, it is a personal decision with profound consequences. No one can make the decision for you. If you choose to allow someone else to dictate to you what you will think, that is a choice with its own consequences, and it applies to everyone regardless of which philosophy/religion they choose to follow.

But the argument that faith in and of itself is antithetical to reason stems from ignorance about the nature of faith itself. It is like Reardon's wife holding the bracelet of Rearden steel. She had no comprehension of what it represented and so willingly discarded it without a thought. To those of us who have done the research and actually worked in the mills to forge the steel, it is valuable to us. Until one has taken their turn in the mills and forged similar steel of their own, they will remain ignorant of the true value of both the process and the results.

K, I was raised in a religious family, and met Rand
when I was 15 through the advice of a friend.

I have always been a scientific sort of guy, and
became an engineer by profession. . the social and
self-sacrifice aspects of religious people turned me
off, when I was a kid. . I found a home in atheism
with Rand for more than 20 years, and it felt quite
comfortable. . except for the good people whom
I left behind.

in my mid-30s, I decided to learn how to express
myself differently, in order to "integrate" myself
into my family and my society.

I studied the purposes of religion -- the good ones.
like the process of passing on wisdom from generation
to generation about how best to live -- morals and
the like. . optimism. . the absolute truths of human
nature and the nature of reality.

I decided to adopt a stance of believer, with a twist.

I contend that many, many good people are religious
for reasons which make sense -- comfort in times
of grievous trouble, meditation when the ultimate
in conscience and insight are needed, and confidence
in the face of doubt that right is right.

I contend that organized religion is usually dangerous
and "may be hazardous to your health." . but the
awestruck sense of admiration of reality, like a
youngster looking up at the night sky, is needed
to keep our perspective in life. . and a sense of
right-and-wrong can come from a heartfelt personal
estimation of "what would Jesus do?"

people here in the gulch sidestep me for this, but
the little boy looking up at the stars is still in there,
though I'm 66 now. . the goal is wisdom,,, and the
process includes study, humility and insight.

may your life be filled with the love of life of a Dagny
or a John, and the wisdom of the ages. . and,
welcome to the gulch! -- j

Frigid, but that's just my opinion...
Many decades ago, a friend posed this question:'
"If, right here and now, I could completely convince you that God Exists... OR that God Does NOT Exist... and out of that understanding, you immediately decided to change the 'way you live your life,' the REAL question is not "Does God Exist?" but "Why would you need to change 'the way you're living your life' as the result of that answer?!"

If you need a God figure to provide the "how to live your life" answers, I believe that it comes with the inherent danger that someone else can come along and move you to believe in some other set of "how to live your life" rules.

It seems to me that millions, if not billions of people on earth today have made exactly those kinds of 'decisions of what to do' based on something their parents or religious 'leaders' taught them.

And personally, I don't like the results. ISIS/ISIL has Their set of Beliefs which they 'got from Their Prophet' but along with those 'how-to' directions, they decided that their goal in life is to kill, enslave or tax anyone who doesn't "do it their way."

I find that to be, in a less bloodthirsty but similarly dogmatic way, the same way I look at Liberals versus Conservatives or Democrats versus Republicans... The similar "Our Way is The Right Way and Your Way is The Devil Incarnate and You Will Burn In Hell as The Result."

If you take ALL of the aspects of God OUT of the equation and consider that it might be possible to CHOOSE to 'lead a good life' or 'be nice to everyone' and at the same time 'defend and protect your own property and Self,' well, I believe you can 'get there' without any God-figure.

I think a lot of people actually agree with that position or philosophy, so if it's possible for so many people to get to that 'way of living life' WITHOUT any God, it inclines me to also believe that all this God Stuff is an artificial construct created by some folks and for some reason OTHER than 'helping everyone get to heaven' (or wherever.)

If you can live a loving, productive life Without Any God's Directions, it really makes the whole Religion Thing a ruse.

But... that's just what I believe... :)
Enjoy your search.

Oh, and by the way, why or how aren't ALL descriptions of The Afterlife, as described by people who have had Near-Death Experiences THE SAME? Why isn't there just One Book describing Heaven or Hell and a lot of footnotes from people saying, "Yeah, same for me!" ?

Just askin'... :)