I see. I think I see.

Of course, I don't recognize what she "worshiped" as God, or as any lesser god.

Such a post does not warrant a response.

It was always my impression that she would have acknowledged that something created the cosmos and everything in it if she had been allowed to by the press...they were all hung up on the mystical opposed to the quantum physical truth...and everyone still is.
I remember her saying that we do not know what that is, but it is...so get over it-(paraphrased) she was pissed off at the question.

Everyone is still hung up on the word or misconception of a "God" and it has meant many perverted, stupid things in the past. I use "creator" because that's what it is in effect, we have no clue what it is but it is self-evident, things did not get this precise all by themselves...simple stupid, right?
I still get the impression that Ayn would of favored that view in objectiveism.

From the perspective of a scientist this brings up an interesting dilemma. That there is order in the cosmos is easily observed and demonstrated. There is a natural tendency for simple systems to evolve into more complex ones. Quarks combine to form subatomic particles, subatomic particles combine to form atoms, atoms combine to form chemical compounds and so on. This phenomenon goes by many names but spontaneous order seems to be the term that is most appropriate. Originally intended for use in economics the concept has spread to physics. The question then is "what is spontaneous order and why does it exist?" The cosmos is an incredibly complex place and the existence of some sort of force that increases this complexity against all concepts of entropy is unavoidable. Some might observe that this force must be the agent of some cosmological intelligence. If so the word "God" is probably as appropriate as any. Most images of God are anthropomorphic which strikes me as naively limiting. If spontaneous order is an example of the workings of an intelligent agency the definition of deity needs to be considerably expanded.

Oops. Good catch. I need to slow down when typing...

A medium of exchange, making trade easier than swapping chickens for jellybeans.

Not all Deists believe in an indifferent deity. What most of us adhere to is the concept that each person is an agent of our creator, empowered with the ability to make "miracles" reality. That's been humanity's driving force since our creation, with each generation extending our technological evolution into realms once thought only possible for gods.

A Deists prayers are never in supplication, but in thanks for the gifts God has given us to raise the material wealth of most of humanity far beyond mere existence.

Why are the courteous posts of the originator' of this thread being 'hidden'? While I find his thread to be somewhat specious, I do not see any reason to hide UT911t05's remarks.

Jan

watch the only thing Bill Mayer has done that I think is good. The movie RELIGULOUS.

There are hundreds of gods, with many many "beliefs"- some of them totally ridiculous.

People can do what they want, but not be in positions of governmental power where they can enforce their beliefs on the rest of us.

The problem with your argument is the 'supernatural' part of the definition of God. Reality is natural (thus can be quantified), so it cannot be attributed the adjective of supernatual. Also you would need to give reality consciousness in order for it to be a controller of some aspect which can be defined as divine.

god
conjecture
3. Money is the root of all evil.
To accept some concept that there is a supernatural being (god or satan) that controls part, all, or an aspect of reality is to deny that existence exists, that A is A. Miss Rand rejected any notions of mysticism and faith. Word games don't cut it.

And some people don't treat money as their object of veneration, i.e. god? (See politician...)

PS - didn't downvote you, but your grammar is incorrect as well. You should be using a plural and you are using a possessive (apostrophe)...

No. Silly is a better term than wrong. "Wrong" implies that you actually made an argument of some sort. You did not. Pretending you did would be irrational - or silly.

?

Interesting.

Just last night I was surfing on my web tv and settled on watching Zeitgeist. Ever see that movie? It's thought-provoking. I had seen it a few years ago. The comparison of different religions in that movie is enlightening.

I grew up going to a Baptist church. But, the hypocrisy I saw from the members and others who called themselves Christians drove me away from organized religion forever. It's clear to me in my adult life the churches are just a tool of the establishment, of the government, to control the masses. Pretty depressing to think about.

Exactly. Primacy of consciousness versus primacy of existence. Which is it? You cannot turn reality into consciousness by changing the word, any more than you can turn "A is A" into "A is not-A" by changing a word.

Either our words have meaning or they do not. If I can say, "Rand believed in reality, which is the same as God," in contradiction to her own statements, then I might as well say that she said, "You really can't know anything," even though she did not.

The claim that she believed in God is not only false, but pernicious. It is either mistaken at a fundamental level or it is a deliberate lie.

How does your post back up your statement? I am not an English professor, but your post doesn't support your statement. Let's look closer:
#1 A non-radical definition of God. OK so far.
#2 A further description rounding off #1.
#3 Huh? When my boys were born their grandparents, parents, uncles and cousins gave them excessive attention. They knew nothing of money and were not worshipped. Are you inferring Rand worshipped money? If so, your #3 is pretty convoluted. But if there's any proof of it, can you cite anything in her fiction or fact that indicates such an attitude? Perhaps it is the use of the dollar sign as a symbol? If you understood what you were reading, you would know that it had very much less to do with money per se, than it did with economics and the contrast between capitalism and all other economic "isms."
I can only conclude that you neither understand Rand, Objectivism, Objectivists and probably neither philosophy nor economics. However, I invite you to stick around. You might learn something.

So are you saying anyone who believes in reality believes in god?

To "personify" reality is to place consciousness over existence, a philosophical position that Ayn Rand opposed. "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...

God as you describe (him,her,it) does not have a specific nature or identity, and "excess attention" is a subjective term and an attribute of consciousness rather than existence.

To paraphrase Hillary, what difference would it make if she did believe in God? Its like the leftist who claim that she was a hypocrite for accepting money from Social Security. I don't accept their reasoning, but even if I did, if she was a hypocrite it would not matter to me. I can get value out of what she wrote, and what others have extended as part of her philosophy without any regard to her as a person.

God's don't exist. Money does. You need a better dictionary.

Ayn Rand and Objectivism reject the idea of the supernatural and reject faith as a means of determining truth.

But there is a place for reverence in human life, for dedication to values and respect for the awesome and sublime.

Read more: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...