It is you who gratuitously interjected the absurd attack on Ayn Rand's philosophy as a "fool's religion". Take your irrational insults somewhere else. You don't belong here.

Both you and the original post insisted on faith in the supernatural "creator" as the source of rights, which is why the subject arose. You pushed the subject of religion yourself. Don't be surprised when you are rejected.

No one said that atheism is the basis of the rest of Ayn Rand's concepts and principles. Rejection of faith and belief in the supernatural are a simple consequence of reason, not a basis for her ideas. Rejecting belief in the supernatural is not an "anti-concept". It is of secondary philosophical importance because faith has no cognitive worth at all. If you don't want to discuss it then don't insist on interjecting it yourself.

For Objectivists, atheism is non-belief in the existence of a supreme being, not belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. And it has everything to do with the rest of her concepts, which rest on the primacy of existence rather than the primacy of consciousness, as in a consciousness that brings existence into being, makes its rules and demands worship and obedience. The concept of man’s rights cannot stand if it depends upon the will of some all-powerful supernatural being.

You pronounce your own opinions upon me as if you had any authority to claim the products of my mind - of how I view Objectivism. Objectivists themselves are internally conflicted about several ideas. There are also several unanswered questions Objectivism does not address. I will accept work-in-progress, but the notion that it is a "complete" philosophy is a stretch to say the least.

As to the "irrational" argument of theism, you have what you want to believe, and I have what I know. They differ. We disagree. Nevertheless, I have learned much from listening to atheists' arguments. I feel myself benefited - especially since I disagree with their conclusions. I want to encourage dialogue even with those I disagree with - as long as they remain civil. Calling names and disagreeing is easy, but it is also the refuge of the unimaginative and biased.

Ah, yes, another irrational non-argument. You obviously know nothing about Objectivism and are just another troll. I'm done on this thread. You are simply unreachable.

No, no no! Feel free to keep talking. Just go do it somewhere else.

"Stop talking." Oh, yes. That is the cry of the intellectual, isn't it? That's the same argument used by the global warming fanatics: that all debate is ended because they want it to be - that because the alternative doesn't fit the chosen narrative that the matter is closed.

Advancement always comes to those who challenge the impossible - to those who push their own perceived boundaries. That never happens to people who have already decided that they know everything because they never ask the question "what if".

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive - a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]"

Uh, yes she did. Her objection is that man must remain subordinate to God. I did not misrepresent anything.

If you are not willing to protect and defend your own property, to place that burden on someone else (without compensation) is nothing less than slavery, is it not? Of course it is. If someone infringes on a trademark or other intellectual property you own, is it not your individual responsibility to sue them to stop? Yes. If someone builds a fence encompassing a portion of your property and you ignore it, do you not lose ownership of that land? Yes. And why is that? Because a right not asserted is no right at all.

What is responsibility? It is the personal acknowledgement of the requirement to act. What you argue by claiming that rights have no associated responsibilities is that rights require no action to retain them. But as I have demonstrated, defense of a right is the required action born of responsibility. And just as rights are individual, so is that responsibility. May groups of individuals recognize a similarity of rights and act together to efficiently delegate responsibility to others to protect rights? Absolutely, and this is how governments were formed (see the Preamble to the Constitution).

Anyone can do absolutely nothing at all. It takes no energy and no thought. No action. No choice. No accountability. No responsibility. And no rights as a result. One becomes merely another object in the universe rather than an agent in pursuit of one's own future.

Yes, there is also no room for debating the nonsensical anti-concepts such as the nonexistence of a god. That was my point.

Discussion here should not go to this subject at all. It is of no point for where rights come from, because rand held that they are determined through observation of reality, which I agree with you and her on. Why do so many focus on the part of her belief (atheism) that will do nothing to assist with the rest of her concepts?

Eww,

as usual you did not pay attention to a single thing I wrote. I think rand philosophy of reason and individualism is great, I think atheism is a fools religion, but my belief in individualism would bid me to protect your right to have that fools religion if you so desire.

We disagree about the existence of a creator. Fine, what do we agree on? Do you even know or care?

Have you never known anyone who you respected for other traits that also had a belief in religion? Jet is not proselytizing his faith in this post. He is trying to share his legal research. Instead of jumping to conclusions, have an open mind and examine all the facts before you throw out 100% of a legal explanation that may be 99% truthful and 100% invaluable.

It disgusts me that objectivists here would rather argue over atheism vs religion instead of examining what may be a crucial way the law has been used to steal power from individuals and wield it in the state.

It works for me. A paradigm is not a religion and
I'm not "most people", I am me.

Jetgraphics, my apology for hi-jacking your thread
with this digression. I should have posted separately under Philosophy.

The paradigm works for me. You might want to google panentheism which addresses your conjecture of an meta-universal entity to control everything.

Ayn Rand rejected the supernatural as fundamentally irrational. She did not "choose atheism" because "humankind didn't achieve the status of gods" or because of "diminished capacity" in an "afterlife". You don't know what you are talking about and continuously misrepresent Ayn Rand's philosophy and try to replace it with interjections of religious nonsense. Rejecting belief in the supernatural does not require answering floating abstractions about the alleged "goals of souls".

There is no duty to be in a state militia or any other kind of involuntary servitude. Our rights as individuals are inherent in our nature as human beings who require the freedom to think and act on behalf of our own lives; they are not contingent on "responsibility". People who behave irresponsibly destroy themselves or are to be restrained for the violation of others' rights. The conservative slogan "no rights without responsibilities" is flat wrong. It is pronounced in a social, not a personal context. It does not recognize the source and meaning of personal responsibility and substitutes collectivist imposition of "social responsibility" on individuals.

The militant religious conservatives who downvote their rejection and who are incapable of discussion do not belong on an Ayn Rand forum.

The "whole point of Objectivism", which is a complete philosophy, is not only to "ascertain Truth, i.e., Reality", neither of which are capitalized. You don't know what the philosophy is, and confuse it and its purpose with both the physical sciences and religion. The "question of God" does not "remain unresolved". Those of us know what we know and why are not "stuck". Endless "reexamination of fundamental principles" on behalf of the irrational and what one already knows is wrong is not being "stuck".

The point of this site is the intelligent discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, which has no room for debating nonsensical anti-concepts such as the existence of a god. Stop proselytizing and go somewhere else to preach to your choir.

That's nonsense. The whole point of Objectivism is to ascertain Truth, i.e. Reality. The question of God - as noted by XenokRoy - remains unresolved. Atheists can not prove that point of view because one can not prove a negative. Theists can not compel the action of God (and that even if they can describe their God) and so proof on that side remains apocryphal. But both sides can learn much from each other: there is no harm in re-examining one's fundamental principles. Reality isn't going to change one way or the other, but unless we're willing to consider something other than that we already believe, we are stuck where we are.

One of Ayn Rand's biggest conflicts with organized religion was the notion that humankind didn't go on to achieve the status of the very gods they emulated. So instead she chose atheism. She believed very much in capacity of the mind for reason and learning: to enter some afterlife of limited or diminished capacity seemed to her a contradiction.

As to the notion of a soul, one has to pose the question: to what end? It is only in postulating a goal for such a soul that the question can be entertained at all.

You are correct. I am, of course, relying on the history of our Government and the Declaration of Independence. And where our government started out on a moral foundation, I, too, agree that it has strayed significantly from its course.

Not all governments recognize the primacy of existence or the rights of man qua man. Those that don't are immoral, including, unfortunately, our own.

...and you can go join XRoy elsewhere.

You clearly do not belong on a website related to Ayn Rands philosophy. Go find someone who cares about your point of view. I don't.

unfortunately when we lost the republic and went to a democracy we entered the era of the tyranny of the majority who are willing to give away their rights and yours and mine for the false political promise of security by the state...