Re: “Objectivism and religion are not mutually exclusive.” Whichever side of the issue one chooses, Objectivism and religion actually are mutually exclusive when one drills down to core philosophical questions: What is reality? What do we know and how do we know it? How should we act based upon such knowledge? In her writings, Ayn Rand clearly rejected faith both as a legitimate means of gaining knowledge of reality and as a proper foundation for a system of ethics.

The premise in your question is that there was a 'before' there was "something" and it was "nothing". How do you know that?

"Do you not have to have faith in reason" James you seem to be very confused on what reason is.

A mis-characterization to re-frame a question.

Hehe..yep. People do seem to like it. People are afraid, unsure. They see oppressive leadership as the fix.

A couple of my favorites:

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”
- Mark Twain

&

"If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?"
- Thomas Jefferson

Enjoy.

Exactly.

One thing I find particularly galling is all the nonsense about a government shutdown over budgeting issues. What most people don't know is that all through and up to the Reagan years it was an annual occurrence that the government shut down! And this was a GOOD thing because it forced the politicians back into negotiations where they were forced to be reasonable. That hasn't happened since Clinton and most people just don't know that. And why hasn't it happened since Clinton? Because that was the end of the Blue Dog Democrats - those economically-conservative yet socially liberal individuals who we would now call libertarians. Without them to bring the hard left-wingers back into reality, now the entire political machine has lurched to the left, resulting in expanding entitlements and a growing welfare state. Couple that with too many RINO's who agree to the social spending in exchange for some quid pro quo in military spending or pet projects and you get exactly what we've had for the past 20 years - a ballooning deficit and a pending economic crisis.

It was just an example about using reason and logic to make decisions. I wasn't suggesting that Objectivists were emotionless or sought to be emotionless. Besides, I've met a few of you personally - no pointy ears.

That would be the logical thing to do, yes. ;)

The problem that one ultimately runs into, however, is that pesky question of the purpose of being. Both Conservatives and Objectivists agree on the notion of existence, but they spar on the origin and purpose of that existence. That fundamental question is the true test of any philosophy/religion.

We are moving. Time makes it so. Existence in time is to pass through time, moving from one point to another to another. The $64 million question is where we started from and where we perceive we are headed.

After 60+ years of reading AR, being anal retentive about every word she wrote does not improve my quality of life. Maybe yours, but not mine.

In fact, a new necessary fiction for the season: " I will not gain 10 pounds between T-Giving and the Superbowl."

Try defining "faith" using a positive definition. By Objectivist logic, negative definitions like the one you continue to use being the "opposite of" something else are strictly rejected as the strawman arguments they are. Objectivism is about defining things as they are, not as they are not.

And by the way, I've met many Jehovah's Witnesses and though I don't agree with their philosophy, I admire them for their courtesy and strength of conviction. None of them - or anyone for that matter - "deserves contempt". Contempt is exercised by people with an inferiority complex who feel the need to assuage their egos by reasoning to themselves that they are better than others. If you want to harbor such emotions and allow them to rule you, that's your choice. But don't pretend to argue a logical position so influenced. That's like someone walking out of a bar after drinking claiming that they are perfectly capable of driving home safely.

"No one said that a political candidate cannot be supported who doesn't agree '100% with Ayn Rand'. Ayn Rand didn't say that either. You made it up to try to intimidate your targets as 'extremist'."

I said no such thing and I reject your attempts to put words into my mouth. I simply said that it was foolish to intentionally make enemies of everyone around one's self - a sentiment which curiously enough you echo only a few sentences later. It's as if you are so busy focusing on how my arguments offend you that you can't see the points on which we agree.

"...pushing a religious agenda. It does not belong here and it does not belong in politics."

That's crap and you know it. Politics is all about legislating morality and it is always going to be about contests of philosophy. You don't seem to have any problems with abortion, yet the decision to legalize or criminalize it is absolutely a question of philosophy that gets played out in politics. The same holds true with everything in society and the laws we make: they are all philosophically-based and implemented through political channels. What are the discussion on this forum about? They are discussions about which ideological principles should be implemented through political channels so as to promote a sound economy and preserve human rights. If that isn't how philosophy directly becomes politics, I don't know what does.

Precisely. Define the purpose of life if its termination is oblivion and the cessation of consciousness. It makes no sense.