No one says that, except people who claim that others do. Citing Ayn Rand is merely canonical. It does help to sort out _opinions_ and _interpretations_ from the actually content of _Objectivism_. This is especially important with technical language that can be mistaken for vernacular. See khalling above on Newton. We use "weight" and "mass" interchangeably in common talk - and wrongly so. Similarly, conservatives who were "influenced" by Ayn Rand have all kinds of opinions about immigration, national defense, and the role of religion in government. Citing Rand verbatim helps to keep the opinions attached to the opinionators.

I reject that. You set up AR as a "God" which is a false argument. If I have learned Newtonian physics, I accept Newton as a God? Or accepting logic sets up Aristotle as a God? stick to facts and evidence

Isaac Newton did.

Legends spread hundreds of years later by primitives claiming 'miracles' that contradict everything we know is no substitute for a satellite operating on physical principles, reproducible, and engineered and built by men committed to logic and reason.

Towns and cities are not supernatural. The mysticism of ancient wandering tribalists thousands of years ago passing on their myths are not evidence of contradictory supernaturalism. You are grasping at straws trying to defend mysticism while trying to steal the prestige of empirical observation as an excuse for it. You can't have it both ways.

Primitive belief in the supernatural is not a threat to civilization or Objectivism. It is rejected because it is screwy and irrelevant to rational knowledge, not out of fear. The threat is from irrational people committing irrational acts by physical force. Those who act on faith inevitably use force to get their way because they have no objective standards that anyone else can see in order to come to any agreement.

The subjective does not have to be removed from objectivity, it isn't in it to start with. Ayn Rand gave comprehensive explanations for her principles, she did not just "say so". If you can't tell the difference then you are in big trouble understanding or validating anything.

It isn't subjective. The method matters.

AJAshinoff: "I'm not sure why you would take a point when I asked a question and was prepared to give you a rational answer."

I have no idea what that means and so can't address it. I don't know what it means to "to take a point" or what you mean by "being
prepared to give a rational answer" to your own question that you did not ask.

The "proper context" in which to determine what is in our self interest is reality, not mysticism. Rationality is not wishful thinking in pursuit of what you want but can't a find a way to get in reality. Pursuing contradictions is not in your self interest.

The Enlightenment did overthrow the stranglehold of religion. Christianity was the philosophy of the Dark and Middle Ages. Theocracy and sacrifice to other worldliness were destroyed, making possible the moral acceptance of the right of the individual to his own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness here on earth.

Our rights are inalienable natural rights because they are based on the nature of man, who requires freedom in order to make choices and live in accordance with his nature; rights are not mystical decrees that explain nothing while in the name of a supposedly superior mysticism concede reason to the statists, hoping that that mysticism will keep them in check as a "shrewd" maneuver while they laugh at you and do what they want.

The best of American Christians in the remnants of religion today pay lip service to it with little impact on their personal lives. Most of them don't even bother to go to church any more. They are productive individuals who pursue values on earth, and are much better than and have nothing in common with the sordid sense of life of the likes of Tertullian and Augustine groveling before the supernatural in the Christian era, which is the opposite of the American sense of life. But "atheism" is not an explanation of anything and is not intended to be. It is not a substitute for a positive view of life and the world, it only rejects the supernatural, making it a minor aspect of rational thought required for positive achievement.

Science did not "deconstruct", it made possible rational pursuit of knowledge and the engineering that has created so much. The rise of reason, individualism and science broken free from the stranglehold of religion resulted in a spectacular improvement in our lives in only a few hundred years out of millennia of primitivism. You count on it as you type at your keyboard denouncing it.

There is no "answer for creation" in the religious sense; there is no creation of existence as such out of literally nothing, which is meaningless. Those who want to understand the world pursue it by understanding its nature and processes rationally through science. Mystical speculation of an imagined super being running the universe is not understanding of anything, any more than primitive tribes attributing causes of everything from the weather to the growth of food to airplanes in the sky built by advanced civilization understand anything through imagined gods pulling strings.

You said that I attributed too nefarious a perspective to Dave Brat because you think he is a "theistic objectivist" and I replied that there is no evidence that he is that bad.

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is why she got to say what it is rather than you. There is no such thing as "theistic Objectivism". If you want to steal some of Ayn Rand's ideas from what you regard as a Chinese menu to munge them with contradictions as if ideas were pawns floating on a table to be manipulated and interchanged with plug'N'play while calling it "developing from a different perspective", then pick another name for whatever you want rather than trying to imply it is a kind of Objectivism. It isn't. You are contradicting it.

I do think its a poor name choice, but it has caught on regardless of its proper historical context.

Appreciated. Someone is voting down all of my posts.

I didn't down vote. Just so you know.

Evidence, Jesus was written about in the tomes of 3 major religions. Almost all of the cities and towns from the old an new testaments have been found using satellite imaging.

I still don't understand the threat to objectivism by those who believe in a deity.

Keplar 22b exists to all of us solely because the we're told that the Keplar satellite saw it. Even now there are only artists renditions based on what data (not pictures) we're told was sent back. A telescope can't see it, only that lone satellite and those assigned to monitor it, a dozen or so.

12 apostles eyewitness and wrote of Christ.

Not much difference at all, IMO.

I just looked up keplar 22b and it said that it's observable and demonstrably so. Like if I wanted to see it they could show it to me.

I guess we all have our own criteria for determining what's real and what isn't. Keplar22b meets mine, God doesn't.