Faith in the supernatural and reason are opposites. Yes they are mutually exclusive. Reason versus faith are opposing concepts.

When we look at what the founders of this country thought about the nature of our rights we find that it was John Locke, not Christianity. They did not make mystical assertions pronouncing rights with no understanding, and no appeals to Christian dogma are or could ever be a defense of the rights of the individual.

Your personal attacks and misrepresentations reveal that at best you have no understanding of what I wrote. Your post is non-responsive. This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not militant religionists attacking them with religious conservative dogma. If you can't retrain yourself then you do not belong here. Your repeated appeals to Christian moral duty and faith do not add to the discussion and are contrary to the goals and guidelines for this forum.

Please take your personal smears, feuding and false accusations somewhere else.

Maybe it was bringing up the Third Law... --giggles-- For some reason that never played well at cocktail parties, either. --shrug--

Twern't me. I gave you a +1

It is... that which is. I think it was a fluke of hydrocarbon benzine molecules that were combined with some unstable element (ferminicum? Lawrencium? Maybe # 163 on the not yet completed periodic table) that we are even here, but who was the organic chemist that threw this mess together some 4.3 seconds in their time (or 9 billion years ago our time) that put all this here...

What if his name was... Gogol Dievid Schmixiv, otherwise known as Gog Dio (by his normal custom), or just God to his drinking buds... in some high school lab, and we're all in some petri dish of a universe waiting our turn in the autoclave...

Some weirdo 9560 years ago had this insight and said something, and it got convoluted that one had to worship Mr. Schmixiv so he wouldn't dump our petri dish in the autoclave...

OK, this is absolute nonsense, but how the hell do we know? Serious... this makes as much sense as anything else... so I'll tip a shot of the tequila I'm drinking tonight to Ser Schmixiv... and his lab experiment. I hope he got an A for this. I htink he deserves it. --giggles--

I find it interesting that here, on this list, we can be so single-mindedly anti-liberty that we can vote down this. I would love to know who did this, but it doesn't matter... you know who you are, hiding behind your keyboard, and honestly - that kind of intolerance will lead to the downfall of our principles. The principles of we who dare to think, to speak our minds.

I do not expect you to out yourself for down voting me... just as I would not epect libdems to admit they voted to condemn our country. At heart, they are no less destroyers than the Socialists and Leninists - not just self-centered destroyers to the end, but those who would burn our constitution because you think it not exactly as you feel it should be.

Yeah, I am a Theist. I know you have to hide in the shadows, not because you have a belief in your own structure, but because it's far easier, on the internet, to be a troll stab-and-slasher hiding behind a keyboard than standup for what you believe in, and give a RATIONAL argument to that.

Hmmm????

Naturally .So much for logic.

I am not a huge fan of Mill. Locke came before him and I think Mill stuck with the Scottish Enlightenment idea that emotions were valid epistemology tools. He was also clear that he thought it was okay for the government to redistribute wealth under certain circumstances.

I agree with your last statement.

You are right. Everybody else seems to be getting their shit together and Carson... Not so much. But I think he is stealing the "outsider" votes from Trump and the religious base is still huge. I'd like to say I'm disappointed in him but really, I knew it was coming.

I stand corrected, then. How about Mill?

Oh, well... If we're just observing co-existence then how about there was prayer in school at a time when slavery was legal? Or how about even slaves went to church? Although I'm not sure they were allowed to go to school, even though schools and churches were often the same place. And if it is just a matter of co-existence, why even bring it up if it is not relevant?

Of course religion will not enslave us. That would be like saying guns kill people. It is religious people who would enslave us.

Slaves weren't counted as people. Not really. Three fifths and all that. Still, just demonstrating absurdity.

Wish I had the link for the one Prager Un did on the 10 commandments, pretty close to a 'Conscious' view point.
The Golden rule however, in today's perverted society is questionable cause what one might deem acceptable done to others may not be acceptable done on to me.
Galt's oath is one of my favorite's and of course: No one may initiate force, fraud or coercion upon any individual nor any individual's property or contracts, is my number one choice. It actually underlies our constitution. Shame it wasn't stated out right then liberals couldn't change the intent to suit themselves.

I was not implying that prayer had something to do with having more freedom. I was stating that there existed more freedom at a time when there was prayer in school. It was an observation of co-existence, not causality. Freedom was able to exist at a time when the entire country seemed to either go to church or temple.

I'm not saying Dr. Carson can't "enslave" us. Who knows what will really happen when someone takes office? What I am saying is it isn't the religion that will do it. Religion used in that manner is a tool.

Also, I'll say it again: there could not have been more freedom when there was slavery simply because the slaves were not free. The only way there could have been more freedom for the entire population, at that time, would be if the slaves were not counted as people and, therefore, not part of the population.

During the time frame you referred to there were fewer laws restricting freedom.
During the time frame I referred to there were even fewer laws than that.
Since I was not there for either, this is all the facts I have to go by.
Your statement implied that prayer in school may have had something to do with having more freedom.
My statement implied that legalized slavery may have had something to do with having more freedom.
Neither statement is true but one is just as likely as the other.

I believe Rush calls that "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".

I'm with you blarman. It has truly astounded me that there was such narrow-minded comments coming from some in this forum I had once much admired.

Your statement of non-facts does not make it true. Facts are still facts.

What I do not get is why some on this forum think pragmatism is objectivism. Just because some "truths" and/or "facts" are not known to you does not mean they do not exist. Some of us on this forum have had physical, real, factual events occur in their life that proves the existence of God that goes beyond faith. There are natural and physical laws at work on this planet and in the universe that you actually do not understand. There are parts of our brain and abilities of our brain that are not understood and that we do not fully use. So please, stop with the elitist mentality.

What I do not get is why some on this forum think pragmatism is objectivism. Just because some "truths" and/or "facts" are not known to you does not mean they do not exist. Some of us on this forum have had physical, real, factual events occur in their life that proves the existence of God that goes beyond faith. There are natural and physical laws at work on this planet and in the universe that you actually do not understand. There are parts of our brain and abilities of our brain that are not understood and that we do not fully use. So please, stop with the elitist mentality.

+1. It seems atheists on this forum are blinded by prejudices. But facts are facts.

I guess socialism, fascism, communism, etc. are also really "religions" too. So we have Hillary as religious as Carson really- just in a different way. None of them are based on anything rational. Carson would have no abortions at all, and homosexuality would be relegated to a crime, and there would be no same sex or plural marriages either. They are all against "scripture". Imagine if the president were a Mormon. They have some interesting beliefs that would impact us all negatively. With Hillary and Sanders the government is entitled to take everything you have and give back only what it wants- just enough for you to live and keep producing. Our constitution needs to be changed and limited again to prevent the government from taking from A and giving to B, as it does now.

Reagan was a founding father?

Masons, like all other fraternities, affirm a belief in God. Such groups are the epitome of cronyism and collectivism, with the goal of orchestrating social control, from the tiniest towns to the global government.

Those who claim objectivity along with their mysticism are not objective; they are pragmatic.

Religiosity, like any belief system, is formed from ideas in human heads. Ideas, like other organic entities, seek to survive and proliferate. True objectivity is the defense against that kind of viral infection. A=A is the epistemological litmus test.

What humanity has not yet achieved is not to resort to murder when ideas seem to clash. We need that next stage of psycho-epistemological evolution.