See last part of my comment for further elucidation of my point of view. Try not to close your mind to the possibilities in the universe. I may be disappointed in the future, or, you might be by whatever is at the end of this ride we call life. Never can tell.

This troller is speaking about himself. He's a militant promoter of religion in a forum in which it does not belong, cannot tolerate rejection of his arguments, has no rational response to the rejection of his stock religious slogans, and resorts instead to this kind of personal attacks and name-calling.

None of these "testimonials" with religious interpretations tacked on are evidence of the supernatural.

She was not mistaken in rejecting the destructive faith in the supernatural. Rejection of your nonsense does not make anything else an appeal to an "infallible god". Your illogical, snide personal attacks are just as irrational as your theistic promotions.

Faith in the supernatural does not work for anyone as a means for obtaining knowledge. Belief in the absence or in contradiction to reason is not a default position for "explaining" that which you don't otherwise understand because you haven't figure it out. Fantasy is not a tool of cognition.

Ayn Rand understood the nature of religion very well. She knew a lot more than what she experienced with religion as a child in Russia and rejected it entirely for good reason, with all its variants and competing sects. There are no exceptions for "protestantism". Your religious mysticism contradicts Ayn Rand's ideas in all fundamentals and you can't save it from that by appeals to some preferred sect and ridiculous accusations that she "didn't understand it".

The reference I cited conceptually explains the relation between 'order' and 'heat' and how they gave rise to the concepts, which is what you seem to be asking about.

"Is there one thing written in the Bible that Ayn Rand would find objectionable with the exception that she didn’t believe in an afterlife?"

Yes, the concept of altruism.

Altruism means “selfless” concern for the welfare of others. Altruism is not synonymous to charity, because in truth and in reality, altruism makes charity impossible, as it imposes obligation on the individual to put the interest and welfare of others above his own.

Relying on Aristotle’s philosophy, philosopher Ayn Rand offered the most proper definition of individualism, by identifying its metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political foundation. Both Aristotle and Ayn Rand reject the morality of altruism. Aristotle rejects altruism because he champions rational egoism. For example in his theory of friendship in Nichomachaean Ethics, the philosopher contends that an individual must befriend himself first before he can befriend others.

On the other hand, Ayn Rand rejects altruism because according to her, “the basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.”

Ayn Rand wrote in the Virtue of Selfishness:

“Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.”

http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/the...

There are a number of Christians who strongly disagree with Rand's definition of altruism, even claiming that she distorted the Christian view of altruism. If they are correct, her philosophy cannot be the same as Christianity.

https://www.google.com.ar/search?client=...

I have no desire to destroy the concept of Christianity. I want it to be known for exactly what it is and it is not the same as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It requires a fallacious argument to "conclude" that it is. It is also fallacious to make an "argument" with expressions like, "sadly, I don't believe that you have an understanding of it (the Bible) or "For that matter I’m not convinced that you understand Ayn Rand’s core of her philosophy either." It's more ad hominem.

I acknowledge that what I have done in this post is zero in on altruism and, in this topic, I have zeroed in on your claims that the philosophy of Ayn Rand is the same as Christianity. That is an equivocation that requires a massive amount of evasion (if not misrepresentation) of what she actually believed and expressed.

The last thing I would ever consider doing is dictate to you what your beliefs should be, but don't expect me to remain silent when you misrepresent the "beliefs" of Ayn Rand in a website like this.

I meant to write that Ayn Rand did NOT believe in all of the ten commandments...

Thanks

PS: "The seizure of property by government" has not always been considered stealing, even by Jesus when he was shown a coin bearing the image of the emperor:

…(19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. (20) And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" (21) They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."…Matthew 22:19-21

As an Objectivist, Ayn Rand believed that all taxation constitutes the seizure of property and, based on the above scripture, that belief is not consistent with "Christian" philosophy.

"What does a thief steal except property of another; therefore Ayn Rand’s and Christian philosophy are in fact the same."

Is this supposed to be a syllogism ?

It appears to be a question followed by an unsupported conclusion. It does not follow the simple formula of a syllogism and your "conclusion" is not logically derived.

I know Ayn Rand did not believe in stealing, but it doesn't logically follow that her philosophy is the same as Christianity,

As a matter of fact, the "commandment" you referred to above appears in the Old Testament.

Would it not therefore be correct (using your form of 'logic") to conclude that her philosophy is actually the same as Judaism?

The Koran also forbid stealing. Does that make her philosophy the same as Islam?

PS: Ayn Rand clearly did believe in all of the Ten Commandments. Frank O'Connor was her "ideal man" in real life and she placed no God above him. Nonetheless, she may have granted herself an exemption for commandment number seven as well.

I grew up believing that the major point of Christianity was individual salvation. While Ayn Rand was focused on the individual, she was only concerned with life on this earth, not "life" after death, which she clearly did not believe to be possible.

I never heard anyone who claimed to be a Christian assert that property rights were a major point of their faith and I cannot find anything to support that assertion in the Bible. Ayn Rand, however, believed that without property rights, the concept of individuals rights was meaningless.

I cannot find anything in the New Testament to support the idea that opposition to the seizure of property by government is a a principle of Christianity. I can, however, find what I believe to be a "reference" to sacrifice:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done." (Matthew 16:24-27)

PS: I wasn't offended by your opinions. I was surprised by the insinuations in your comments. They did nothing to support your opinions.

db thanks for the link. It's a most interesting article and worthy of a well-thought out response. I'll do it as a new post.

They just have to be able to think logically (without contradiction).

And without equivocation or ad hominem.

.

"It always amazes me that instead of engaging in debate, some of the commentators in the Gulch tend to assume themselves to be smarter than everyone else and seem to have trouble engaging in debate about the nuances of Ayn Rand’s writings. None of us have an insight into her mind."


What is there to "nuance" about the fact that she became an athiest at the age of thirteen and never wrote anything that would suggest that decision had anything to do with communism, which she abhorred?

What amazes me is how those who want to be "Christian Objectivists" have to misrepresent her history and philosophy in order to find "new meanings" in her writings, while saying no one has an insight into her mind.

She clearly recognized a similarity as well as an inherent contradiction between Christianity and Objectivism when she wrote:

"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus......

Anyone who truly believes in subordinating their self (aka soul) to the soul of others would not be able to honestly take Galt's oath. The term "Christian Objectivist" is a contradiction in terms. No one has to be "smarter than everyone else" to realize this fact.

They just have to be able to think logically (without contradiction).

RE: FredSpeckman,

If, prior to making your baseless assertions (and indigestible "food for thought") about Ayn Rand's Atheism and my (assumed) arrogance, you took five minutes to search "Ayn Rand Atheism quotes" in google you would have been able to find this:

"Ayn Rand was an atheist. According to her one-time associate Barbara Branden, Rand became an atheist at age thirteen. Branden records Rand writing in her diary at that age: "Today I decided to be an atheist." Branden then reports her as later explaining, "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong." [Branden, PAR, p. 35.] Branden continues that Rand's "second reason" is that "no proof of the existence of God exists."

Rand therefore proposes two objections to the existence of God. First, belief in God degrades man, by positing something "higher" or more "perfect." Belief in God is anti-man. Second, there is no proof for the existence of God. While Rand would later emphasize the irrationality of belief in God, the impression from her writings is that her principal objection to belief in God was a moral or psychological one." [Ryan, OCR, p. 270.]

Also: "It is important to keep in mind that Rand opposed religion at its most basic level. That is to say, she believed that it was untrue in all its manifestations and that its consequences were disastrous."

In "Requiem for Man" she sees Catholicism as the principal rival to communism: "Today, Catholicism and communism may well cooperate, on the premise that they will fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, the individual, by forcing mankind to unite to form one neck-ready for one leash." [Rand, CUI, p. 316.]

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Pari...

Even though she saw the Catholic church as a rival to Communism (and the actions of Pope John Paul II would prove this to be true), it is absurd to claim that the "Christian philosophy of Jesus" is not in conflict with the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

In her own words:

(The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287):

"There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul)."

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus...

Anyone who understands the meaning of the word "contradiction" should be able to understand the reason that Christianity and Objectivism will be "forever" locked in an unresolvable conflict. A compromise between the two should be unacceptable to both "sides" for obvious reasons.

my comment wasn't spiteful. I just said a true statement. nor did I insinuate you should feel guilt for the actions of others. Guilt is a useless emotion.
regardless, I am NOT offended by the statement above. I said that clearly below. why are you changing what I said? The exchange above is a bad form of argumentation and actually strengthens an atheist's viewpoint. I made the comment to get you off that kind of exchange and back to the central, key issues. I also said that I appreciated your frustration.