I read the Kindle excerpt and it didn't go anywhere I thought I'd like to go... maybe a longer excerpt or a swatch out of the middle of the book might help?

Hopefully, she was serious and the epiphany she got from you will enable her to question the anti-message that 'other Sources' will hit her with later...

Congrats!

I have read Atlas Shrugged and seen It's a Won-
derful Life, and I don't really agree with George
Bailey's decision to sacrifice his ambition and stay
there in that town for people who apparently didn't
have enough sense to decide to maintain an in-
dependent organization on their own. But to
travesty Atlas Shrugged by deforming it and
mixing it into a kind of hybridization with its
opposite seems sickening to me.--I read Galt's
speech before I read the rest of the book and
it was far from "yawn-inducing" to me. But
that's the kind of thing people would say who
don't have any other argument to fall back on.

John Galt's speech was not too long. Who would skip over it. Concerning Jesus one must get past the Bible. I don't think his representation in the Bible is all there is. If he did exist I think there is evidence he was a revolutionary. In The Book of Thomas he wasn't interested in saving all the lost sheep just the best one, his favorite. I think he would have liked AR.

It just occurred to me, so belatedly!, that our definitions of "enemy" must be very different. Sorry!

I think, in the light of this discussion, that you may wish to read, or re-read, the chapters "The Missing Link" and "Selfishness Without a Self" in "Philosophy: Who Needs It".

my dear martimus, ranter runs an international security business, with even foreign govts as clients. I think he is a risk assessor, as much as we disagree on Christianity. have a productive evening, as you usually do in the Gulch. k :)

It is exactly because I think that taking unnecessary risks is not wise that I said what I said.

My procedure would be to first identify the enemy and then shoot him dead. I certainly abhor the idea of killing someone by mistake.

Hallow, K,

No, I did not check Ranter's business in the Marketplace. Actually, I have never yet "gone" to the Marketplace. My interest here is exclusively exploring and understanding Objectivism and debating ideas. Narrow-minded!

Stay well!
Maritimus

Well, slander (verbal misrepresentation) is out because it's in book form, so you have to try libel (written misrepresentation).

To make a case for libel, you have to show that the subject intentionally misrepresented material fact and damaged the name of the individual as a result. The author's own disclaimer on the front as a rebuttal and the fact that philosophy by its nature is subjective are going to make intentional misrepresentation a tough sell. You also have to look at the number of people affected (audience size) by the book to look at Rand more negatively than they did before. Can you see where this is going?

You're completely entitled to your "righteous indignation" over the matter, but it ultimately comes down to one opinion vs another. If you really want to "get back at" this author, just ignore his book.

Yes, I've read quite a bit of Rand.

your enemies are not in here...well there might be one or two...just because someone is not a theist does not make them evil. Objectivists spend lots of time testing and thing about morality and basing their thought in reason and respect the fact that we own ourselves. Have you read any Rand?

I think you're pulling one over on him Martimus. I know you've checked out his business in teh Marketplace :)

You don't think it is risky to try to deal with an enemy rather than simply to kill him on first sight?

Hi!

"The only part of Objectivism that I see as incompatible with Christianity is atheism, ..."

If you truly believe that, the you and I cannot possibly have anything in common, other than being bipods walking on Earth.

I had enough.

Hi!

You sound to me as if you have never heard of the concept of risk.

The only part of Objectivism that I see as incompatible with Christianity is atheism, which, I believe, is not at all necessary to Objectivism.

Thank you, Ranter.

Apparently, I misunderstood you. Taken as wholes, Christianity, communism (a.k.a. socialism) and Objectivism, could not be more incompatible. Any comparisons of them without going down all the way to their fundamental principles is a job done incompetently, in my opinion.

I encounter here a fair number of people who maintain Christian beliefs and also claim to subscribe to the Objectivist philosophy. I think that they are torn by feeling some guilt for sensing the appeal for Objectivism, while unable to or afraid to draw the conclusions that their reason suggests. If one has been raised Christian means, I think, having been exposed to a, more or less conscious, long training in feeling guilty. I accept that there is a wide spectrum among various denominations and subsets within those. Still, I think, the claim withstands scrutiny.

Finding the "similarities", for some people, alleviates the guilt.

Have a great day!

How about charging him with libel and slander?

Faith is the voluntary severing of one's faculty of reason so as to allow unsubstantiated beliefs to be internalized. Belief is provisional knowledge, unverified information still on probation. It is subject to revision and removal upon further evidence. You seem to have the Alice in Wonderland formula for defining concepts: words mean whatever you want them to mean.

atheism has a definition. what's this "hard" "soft" stuff? Atheists do not acknowledge the existence of God. period. Their reasons are based in logic. There is no evidence. There is a long tradition-however, those roots are founded, co-opted through the superstitious times before the Enlightenment, where concepts such as faith were revered and people had to grasp for reasons to explain things in science they did not have knowledge of. I will say there is a very obnoxious set of atheists who are political and go out of their way to be divisive and uncivil. They are engaging in a belief system as opposed to simply rejecting certain concepts. There are few if any of those on this site to my knowledge. Most objectivists here are pretty patient in these discussions. Try another O forum and you'll see a big difference

Agreed, but that's something a handful of those on this forum seem to forget. They preach rabid atheism (despite a total lack of proof for such a position) and forget that you don't attract flies with vinegar. In my opinion, they'd be much better off to adopt agnosticism than atheism. Let those who want to worship God do so. By forcible excluding them, Objectivists are cutting off their best allies and best potential source of converts. 'Cause they certainly aren't going to be persuading Liberals any time soon.

All are agnostics except those who hold that their faith provides knowledge. Atheists and believers fall in this category.

That's one opinion, but it's not going to matter one bit in a court of law. He's openly saying he is presenting a rebuttal or disagreement with Rand's philosophy. He's not falsely pretending to be a Rand follower in order to present a perversion of her philosophy. In order for one to prevail in court on the merits, one has to show some level of deceit in the matter. We may not like how he is presenting his take on things, but he isn't falsely representing Objectivism or pretending that his ideas and Rands are synonymous. That's why I said it would be extremely difficult to make a substantive case against him. Far easier and more effective to simply ignore the book.

My point in my comments in this string is that the hard atheism of Ayn Rand (and many Objectivists) prevents "spreading the word." If we stress the political, economic and ethical aspects of Objectivism and ignore its assertions on religion and God, it is possible for dialogue between religious people (most of the world) and Objectivists (a minority so insignificant it rounds to zero) is possible. Objectivist ideas will never take hold without such dialogue.