If you had an open mind you would not make such an unsupportable and foolish comment.

Your original assumption may have been in error, but now you are jumping to a conclusion on too little evidence. I have made that mistake, too, but in this case it is not a valid response. Look beyond the title. Jet is not trying to proselytize, only to share legal research knowledge. Do you also think that man's rights are his, not granted by government? If so, and if you have your own basis for that thinking then Jet's legal research may be valuable.

"Rights do not come from conservative imposed "responsibility"."

And I never said anything of the kind. I said that responsibility and rights go hand-in-hand. Neither can exist without the other. And I never used the word conservative either, though it is clear from the way you use it that is an invective to you. I can only conclude that you include the term to confirm your own bias (against conservatives). I invite you to take those glasses off and crush them under your heel. Take an argument for what it is - not your version of it.

"There are no unchosen duties."

There are no unchosen actions, I agree. But duties are obligations or responsibilities and they come as a result of being alive. You don't get to choose all of them. Each of my points from above is an explicit example of a duty or responsibility being tied directly to a right. Other examples: You have a duty to respect others' right to life or risk losing the claim to your own. You have a duty to respect others' property or risk losing your own. You have a duty to obey the law or risk going to jail. Reject any of these at your peril.

"Intellectual integrity does not mean only writing what conservatives believe."

No. It means avoiding fallacy. It means not attempting to impugn intent. It means not intentionally twisting words to mean something other than what was stated. It means openly recognizing one's personal biases and suppressing them. THAT is intellectual integrity. It doesn't imply infallibility, but it does require honest intent.

Take your nonsensical insults somewhere else. You are not contributing to the discussion.

Yes, clearly you know everything and can't learn anything due to a biased, closed mind.

Rights do not come from conservative imposed "responsibility". There are no unchosen duties. Intellectual integrity does not mean only writing what conservatives believe. My post was an integrated explanation, not a chinese menu available for snatching whatever you like when misrepresented as conservative duty.

Disbelief in supernatural gods does not require disproving arbitrary claims of faith. Your revelations and rationalizations are not exploring science. This is not the place for you to keep promoting your religion. Please stop it.

You mix in an irrelevant opinion in the first sentence, an out-of-the-blue and unsubstantiated assertion in the second, and yet in the third you finally say something intelligent and spot on. And then in your fourth you again turn to the fallacies of false accusation and guilt by association, only to finish up with a straw man and another opinion. If you had half the intellectual integrity and honesty you proclaimed, your last post would have only one statement - a statement I agree with whole-heartedly.

"Belief in a god is not one of those unanswered questions."

So you have proved - not speculated, not theorized, not argued, but actually tested and verified - that there is no supreme being? Can I ask you the steps of your test? Can you repeat the test and receive the same conclusion?

The reason I ask is because I have conducted a test and my experience - my actual observation - directly contradicts such an assertion. And not only I, but millions of others throughout the experience of mankind.

Reason is a step, but it is not confirmation in and of itself. Reality only reveals itself after we take action to explore it. It's a start to hypothesize and reason, but the truth of science is in application.

Take your religious proseletyzing somewhere else. It does not belong here.

If a person does not remain subservient, does that not make them an equal? I do not consider it a stretch at all to conclude exactly as I have.

In the end, Rand made a choice - just like every single one of us must. And we will all have to live - and die - with that choice and all its ramifications. I know what the purpose of this life is. If I die tomorrow, I know where I am going and who I will face. For every action I have taken I will give an accounting. And everyone will individually be in that very same position. The question is who will be prepared to do so.

Obviously most of us would "rather" that militant religionists stop their promotions entirely. As long as they do it will be rejected. This entire thread was based on the false explicit premise of a supernatural being as responsible for rights.

That is not addressed by changing the topic to the law being changed away from protecting our rights, as if that could be discussed without reference to the underlying false philosophies that make it possible and which make rationally defending the rights of the individual impossible.

Re-read the title of this thread and his repeated use of the term in his posts. Discussing atheism vs. religion absolutely is on topic. One reason why conservative arguments for individual rights aren't more widely accepted is that they rely on faith-based doctrines rather than on reason and logic.

Since Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy, no 'Objectivist' is "conflicted" over any of the basic principles -- which among many other things reject faith as antagonistic to reason.

There is always more to discover and formulate to expand on what is known in any field of knowledge. That is not "conflicted", and "unanswered questions" are not among the established fundamentals on which everything else and every new discovery rests.

Religious fantasies are not a part of any of this and not serious thought at all.

Re: “Is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration correct, stating that all men [American people] have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure? Or constitutional government that imposes mandatory civic duties upon “individuals” (citizens)?” A false alternative. Rights are not “Creator endowed” and do not depend upon the existence of a supreme being and what that being chooses to endow. And a constitutional government does not necessarily impose mandatory civic duties. And lest we forget, Thomas Jefferson became President under the U.S. Constitution, thus implicitly endorsing it.

"Libertarian" is a (vague) political position, not a philosophical alternative to Objectivism. You can't be an "Objectivist" if you don't know what it is or don't understand it. Rejecting a philosophy of reason in favor of a vague political position because it conflicts with faith makes no sense. This is an Ayn Rand forum. Why are you here as a "devout" religionist? What did you like about Atlas Shrugged -- just the political consequences with no regard to what the novel was about? What is it about Atlas Shrugged that attracted you?

The original post was about rights claimed to rely on the supernatural.

The law is supposed to be based on rights, not the reverse. The nature and source of rights cannot be determined by looking at what laws we happen to have.

"Consent" does not arise because government, whether legitimate or not, has a monopoly on the use of force. Force precludes a requirement for consent, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with what the government is doing.

Ayn Rand rejected belief in god because she rejected faith as contrary to reason. See "Faith and Force". Your quote of Ayn Rand properly denouncing the mystics' destruction, including their demands for intellectual subservience, does not remotely support your ridiculous claim that Ayn Rand "chose atheism" because "humankind didn't go on to achieve the status of the very gods they emulated" or or because of "diminished capacity" in an "afterlife".

Rambling speeches with conservative slogans don't "demonstrate" anything. There are no unchosen duties. Our rights are a consequence of our nature as human beings, which in turn requires a government to enforce them with limited powers, recognizing the absolute right of each individual to make his own choices in his own life. Rational choices include assuring a proper government, not conservative traditions and collectivism. Rights are not a gift of conservatives as social conventions in exchange for imposed vague claims of "responsibilities", including such obscenities as a duty to serve in a "militia".

He wrote "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". He did not say "stop talking". Your false quote is dishonest.

This a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not proselytzing religion. If you don't like that then go somewhere else. There are many places where you can profess your religion, but this isn't one of them. Your "what if" fantasies are incoherent, anti-intellectual intrusions contrary to the purpose of the forum.

There is nothing to debate about your religious fantasy. Rejecting faith as incompatible with reason is not an arbitrarily "chosen narrative". It does not require "knowing everything". Stop demanding to be taken seriously and stop misrepresenting people for rejecting your intrusions.

For everyone atheism means disbelief in a god. It is the militant, anti-intellectual religionists who misrepresent the concept.

Recognizing the non-existence of a god characterized in particular with contradictory, meaningless assertions is only one aspect of it.

Re: “Objectivists themselves are internally conflicted about several ideas. There are also several unanswered questions Objectivism does not address.” Belief in a god is not one of those unanswered questions. The primacy of existence is a bedrock axiom of Objectivism (“Existence exists.”). The primacy of consciousness is a hallmark of subjectivism. Philosophically they are polar opposites.
https://campus.aynrand.org/lexicon/pr...

You did in fact write that Ayn Rand's philosophy is a "fool's religion" and claim that a supernatural "creator" is the source of rights. Rejection of faith in the supernatural is a simple, straightforward consequence of a philosophy of reason. You can't have it both ways. You have said nothing about a rational basis of rights or on what you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy or show that you even understand it. This is not the place for you to swagger in with irrational denunciations of Ayn Rand as a "fool" for rejecting faith and it is not the place for you to promote your religious faith. If there is something you want to discuss about Ayn Rand's ideas then do it, but leave the religion and the insults out of it.

Your statements about Objectivism are wrong. You repeatedly misrepresent it. The evidence is your own posts in comparison with what she wrote. Saying that is not "calling names" and the "refuge of the unimaginative and biased". Your religious fantasies are not rational discussion.