Your right apologies...Like most "conservatives" I got derailed by a liberal changing the dialog on me.

woodlema, what in hades does this conversation have to do with the post itself? You 're hijacking it for your own purposes. There is no dispute that Objectivism is not religious. It is strongly rejected in the philosophy. Can the religious benefit by studying and applying the philosophy? Absolutely. But this conversation should have its own post.

Well Rand was ignorant on the subject. So what? And Branden later apologised for remarks he made decades earlier. I can understand why homosexuality is getting looked at here on this post-but not all the religious comments. Religion has nothing to do with the post. Quite frustrating that people feel the need to change the subject in ther zealousness for attacking homosexuality. Temlakos, what is your point about the O community coming to grips with the subject?

And with your insults you prove his point on right of association working both ways.

You are mistaken.

Not all here are atheists. I for instance am not.

Rand was an atheist, but Atheism is not a requirement for objectivism. That is an assumption.

Good. Then, at least as regards the civil law, and the points of that law I mentioned, you and I are in agreement.

So I am to assume then that you refer to and believe Objectivism is a religion in itself? And like other religions you cannot be both Christian and Muslim, or Jewish and Shinto, of Jain and Buddhist?

Or are you saying Objectivism is in itself Atheism? Or is Objectivism a logic based analysis based on Rational Self Interest.

So sorry to disappoint you however, your devout believe in Atheism, is NOT a basis for defining Objectivism. Here is a clip from the Atlas Society regarding this same topic. Please read carefully that REASON is the key and "Blind Faith" is where the issue is. However my belief in God has NOTHING to do with "Blind Faith" but what I see as the reasonable evidence of a Creator.

http://www.atlassociety.org/religion_obj...

There is a profound difference, then, between Objectivism and traditional religions in their respective views of the world. But this is not the primary conflict. The primary conflict is reason versus faith as methods of adopting one's worldview in the first place.



Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority. Faith is essentially an arbitrary exercise of the mind, a willful credulity based on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence, a desire for certainty without the scrupulous cognitive effort required to achieve rational certainty. Faith cannot substitute for reason as a means of knowledge, nor can it supplement reason. Reason is incompatible with arbitrary procedures of any kind.



If we accept reason as a method, then the substantive issues that differentiate Objectivism from most religions can be debated openly and rationally, and Objectivists can respect those who differ about what the evidence proves. But there can be no compromise about reason itself as a method.



For some people, religion is not primarily a belief about the world but rather a belief in spiritual values: a belief that a meaningful human life requires more than material possessions and achievements. Objectivism holds that "spiritual values" can be defined in secular terms, and on that basis agrees that they are of vital importance to fulfillment and happiness. Spiritual values are those pertaining to the needs of human consciousness, arising from the human capacity for reason, creativity, free will, and self-awareness. These needs include self-esteem, love, art, and philosophy (a comprehensive view of existence), among others. Achieving these values in one's life is no less important than providing for one's material needs and achieving worldly success.



Objectivism is an idealistic philosophy that affirms and celebrates the grandeur of the human capacity for achievement and heroism. In this respect, as Ayn Rand noted, it provides a secular meaning for such religious concepts as exaltation, worship, reverence, and the sacred. "Such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling.… What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal."

So again your statement that all Objectivists are atheists is a false statement and made even more inaccurate by making the false claim it is an absolute.

So taking "Reason" as the total basis, while you cannot PROVE that there is no God, I cannot PROVE there is. However you cannot PROVE gravity, you cannot see it, tough it or feel it, you can however observe the effects of gravity, and devise mathematical formulas to confirm the effects of gravity. Faith, not Blind faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for and the evident demonstration of reality though not beheld.

I have faith that if I drop and apple from 200ft up it will fall and be crushed . I do not have to drop to know this, I can see it based on the evident demonstration of reality, I.e. gravity (the force that makes things fall, the thing I cannot see or touch or even measure.)

I can measure water in a glass, but I can only measure gravity by observing OTHER effects.

All I will say is you are looking at this from a 2015 perspective, NOT the perspective of the time. Not in the context of ALL the laws of the time. The Hebrew word for rape back then was a-nah. Next the reference is also 50 shekels PLUS the normal dowry, however, in the Jewish culture the Virgin daughter was the property of the Father, and any such transaction was made ONLY if the Father consented to it.

If the Father did NOT consent to the "fine" as it were, then the punishment of death would have been imposed on the offender.

Again you have to look at the Law in ancient Israel in its entirety not just a clipping of one verse.

Aliona, it might further your cause if you supplied some links or primary sources to support your assertions.
The gays I've met seem, to a person, to never describe their sexual preferences as any kind of 'choice,' so the repeated use of that term sounds more and more like a projection of an opinion than rooted in fact.

Maybe the pituitary is 'root cause.' Does that support the idea of homosexuality as a 'choice'?

I tend to doubt that, any more than you could say your chromosomes led you to your 'choice' of eye or skin color.

And "I choose not to be homosexual"??? Can you point to the date or time when you 'made that choice,' and what decision-making PROCESS led you to that 'decision'?

You're trying to apply logic to a situation which is not, per se, 'logical.' (imnsho)

isn't the first amendment about allowing the
criticism of everything? -- j

I don't think your comment could have been more disdainful. Not very Christian, in other words.

The following source says nothing about the woman "crying out," but only that harsher penalties applied if the woman raped was betrothed or married (death), and lesser penalties if she wasn't betrothed (marrying her or paying a fine, at her father's discretion). http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-... . Do you have another source that translates those passages differently?

I do not support anti-discrimination laws. They are immoral. I also don't believe in hate crime laws. If someone assaults another person, that crime is all that matters. In fact, by punishing "hate" assault more severely than random assault the government is saying that one kind of citizen has less importance than another. That thinking is an abomination.

I don't hate anyone but I do pity someone who gets so offended when hearing someone with opposing views. Relax and just take part in the conversation. Watch the blood pressure. You have enough problems as it is.

Yes, you could be wrong. Read her nonfiction, specifically Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

That book lays out the foundations of Objectivism from start to finish. I failed to find the quote I was looking for, it isn't the kind of book you can speed read. Or it might have been in another of her books.

I thought this was a site where people could talk openly. As usual there is someone who lowers the bar and starts name calling. I'm not surprised. The bible doesn't mention the pituitary but medical journals do. Maybe your mind is too small or completely closed but you could try reading something other than the ny times.

The way Turing was robbed of the end of his life *was* a tragic waste -- and it was because of the gay-haters. I'm no SJW by any stretch, but that part did need to be told. For the same reason, there is material posted about it at Bletchley Park (and on its website, bletchleypark.org.uk), including the government's posthumous apology.

You, madam, are an abject moron.

Since you brought it up I am intimately familiar with my cock and I cherish every moment that I spend with it.

I don't have any idea where you got the idea that the pituitary is in any way associated with being gay. Maybe you imagined that it's in the bible just like you imagined that the bible is the word of a supernatural bogey man.

Usually we have pleasant objectivist conversations here. I hope that the moonbat gay haters and theist nutjobs will leave us alone in the future.

I recommend "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson, which among other things, has Turing's story in it.

I'm going to waste very little of my time replying to you. It is an absolute fact, unavoidable and without question, that Objectivists are atheists. All of them, 100%. If you believe otherwise then you do not understand Objectivism.

This is not my opinion, it is stated plainly for all to see in Ayn Rand's own words. She does not imply it, she states it outright in plain English. You may continue to rail against me for as long as you like and make absurd claims about what atheists believe, but that will not make you any less incorrect.

Exactly. I've seen some historical movies, had questions and then went and researched the actual events. Same goes for historical fiction. Great way to get a 'feel' for the time and pique interest, but in not way a substitute for reading facts and history.

I agree. If we can't laugh at ourselves, how can we understand how others see us? As a Christian, I try to acknowledge what some people think and feel about what I believe and yes, I've laughed at things poking fun at us, God, etc. I believe God has a sense of humor or why would we? While I think the message of our belief is very serious, there are definite examples of it being applied in ludicrous ways. And many people who profess to know what they believe, obviously don't have a clue. Usually, not being able to laugh at yourself or your beliefs probably has much more to do with being self-righteous than about being offended for your 'religion..

We all have choices in life. If you choose homosexuality so be it. I choose not to be homosexual. It's just like love, It's a choice or conscious decision. Some are forced into that lifestyle by predators, some need to get their pituitary checked, and others choose. It May feel like a natural choice but we are what we are. Drop your pants and take a look, that's what you are. The rest is a choice.

If we were in the same room, I can assure you you would swallow back your comment. Don't try to intimidate me into adopting the PC newspeak.

If your going to quota it please cite the EXACT scripture, and context. Not something you think you might have heard someplace.

And to save you some effort, you are referring to Deuteronomy, and the passage you are specifically referring to was if the women does NOT cry out, i.e. consensual. If she does cry out HE is to be put to death. Keep reading ALL these laws in context. You may learn something.

Timelord I have this to say to and about your post....Hogwash!!!

Your logic is not only fraudulent, but an outright lie. Your logic is no different than saying,

Everything I say is a lie, but if everything I say is a lie, I must be telling the truth but I cannot be telling the truth if everything I say is a lie.

Just because Ayn Rand was a devout atheist does not now nor ever will by definition make all Objectivists atheists. Just because YOU are an obvious atheist does not in itself mean everyone else is also.

The biggest problem declaring yourself an atheist is that with no moral ground other than your self to base actions on, that makes EVERYTHING permissible.

Within Atlas Shrugged, there is a definite morality that does not make everything permissible. The moochers and looters like everything to be acceptable and permissible which is one tool they have in the fight against the producers.

The Bible in many ways supports objectivism, both in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, there are numerous passages describing the vile nature of the moocher and looter, and the value and virtue of the producer.

One Example is in the Old Testament in a prophesy by Isaiah that describes the world God intended.

This is talking about the "New Heavens and New Earth God promised to provide for his people.

Isa 65:21 And they will be building houses and living in them; planting vine-gardens and getting the fruit of them.
Isa 65:22 They will no longer be building for the use of others, or planting for others to have the fruit: for the days of my people will be like the days of a tree, and my loved ones will have joy in full measure in the work of their hands.
Isa 65:23 Their work will not be for nothing, and they will not give birth to children for destruction; for they are a seed to whom the Lord has given his blessing, and their offspring will be with them.

Sure sounds like the Objectivist version of how we should all live.

We OWN the product of our labor with no looters or moochers to take what we produce. We will all trade value for value, product for product in a fair trade between consenting parties.