that is ad hominem

actually comsguy, our currency did not adopt that until the Civil War. In fact, at the time, there were still many forms of currency not just one.
http://ij.org/savannah-tour-guides-free-...
The founding fathers did not see it as important AND they saw it as a violation between Church and State. Objectivists are not intolerant of everyone "productive and good." You have enjoyed yourself on this, an Objectivist, website.

Indiana, thank you your highness, but if God is not welcome in this gulch then neither am I.
If you have it all figured out then you are a better man than me. Goodbye.

Impervious to reason... sigh...

I write an entire post showing that the very founding fathers of this nation (even the diests) essentially said "reason and observation lead us to conclude that there is 'a god' out there", in order to show that your claims that "[my] belief in God is not based on reason" are false.

Then you come back and say "you are impervious to reason"? Sigh...

Pick one that is not and defend it. I would like to discuss it with you.

Aaaaaand you just made her point.

So, your only response to an attempt to disprove your thesis is to change the subject and attack the responder. As I said to barwick; let's agree to disagree since you are obviously equally impervious to reason. Objectivism is not a religion; it is a philosophy that denies that religion is either necessary or of any value.

Now I believe that you have crossed the line from discourse on the topic at hand and proselytizing. Let's simply agree to disagree since you are clearly impervious to reason.

LOLOL... it was a goody.... a keeper, I think.

When I read the original, "What is a mouse coward?" thread, I totally lost it! +++++1.
I just realized she said "pemise". ROFLMAO!

You lost me at "sufficient for salvation".

is a pemise anything like a mouse coward?

Nonsense! The founders specifically left god and Jesus out of the Constitution. Their reasons for the Freedom of Religion was to prevent individuals from having to worship or believe anything not formed from their own individual reasoning and rationality.

If you so badly want a country founded on and ruled according to your judeo-christian beliefs and fantasies, go found one, but keep it out of this country founded on reason and individual rights. Practice it in the privacy of your environment or with others that believe as you, but not in my environment or one which we have to share.

I keep giving you a point...but I disagree with your pemise

robbie stays. that's it. trade your points for mine on that. I enjoy your commentary ewv

Indeed! Well said. +1

I guess my point is, unless it's a thread of your own, it's best not to claim who is welcome and who isn't.

Please take this as friendly advice.
I've seen users get very quickly banned for the exact same claim.

I've been reading the above comments over again, and forgive me, but, there's not much of anything to them. A few hundred years ago, the biggest religious discussion concerned itself with how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. The fact that so many intelligent, and yes, admirable persons could waste their time on such irrelevancies, as one of my English friends would say, "is rather off-putting."

My mother was irrational and absolutely evil. I could regale you with stories that would raise the hair on the back of your neck. What she did to my sister using psychological torture (the only word I can think of that fits) was reprehensible. She was sanctimonious and reminds me of an Elmer Gantry-like preacher. The world is much better for the fact that she is no longer around to torture someone.

I find most of your posts disagreeable but haven't down-voted you yet. I only down-vote people on my OWN posts and then only for one of two reasons: 1) they are attacking another poster using personal invective, or 2) their post is so irrelevant to the conversation as to be useless (these I also hide). I do recall one exception I made for someone who is no longer around because he/she was so obnoxious; I down-voted that idiot at every opportunity.

You are correct in a certain sense. I cannot believe that the astounding happenings that needed to come together in order for the earth to bear intelligent life are coincidental. On the other hand the great amount of space and energy and matter in the universe makes almost anything even as farfetched as the earth seemingly possible. One thing I know for sure, the king of the universe (Big IF) won't be found with a flowing white beard wearing a tupa. Also, he/she/it won't have a sexual designation. Something tells me, I've been here before. Rand had a very ideal personification of what a human being could and should be. For now, that's as good a guide for my life as I can imagine.

"Objectivism does not support any of these collectivist notions."
I reject the claim that all of those things are intrinsically collectivist.

You did get back to me. You just hadn't answered the questions.

I'm just saying... scripture is pretty clear once we can get beyond this preconceived notion that it is "our choice" to accept or reject Christ.

Yes, we have that choice. But every single human being on the planet earth since time began, until time eternal, WILL choose to reject Christ, by their own human nature. Where does that leave us?

ONLY those whom God "draws" (as Christ himself said) can come to Christ, and those whom he draws *will* come.

It's plastered all over scripture. It's the same thing Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Aquinas, Polycarp, and all the way back to Paul and the Apostles, all taught and believed.

I'm not quite sure where you get your belief about our "existence before this earth, and choosing to come here for the experience" from, but I've never seen it or heard it anywhere in the Bible, and I've read through it and studied it verse by verse at the same time 2.5 times already, and have listened to thousands of hours of sermons and biblical teachings by long-time Bible scholars.

If you have a reference for that belief though, by all means share.