we seem to generally have decided that some awe about the
reality -- which we attempt to engage objectively -- is considered
appropriate for adults in the gulch. . pretty friendly interchanges,
all told. . including many libertarians!!! -- j
.

This sounds so much like whizzing around in someone's head without steering mechanism. Seems to me a person may have a meaningful spiritual life -- not too deep into "religion"-- that acts his/her guidance without getting askew to the Oath. And how do Libertarian views fit into this?🐾🐢😇☕️

I only meant the part about developing 3D printing and CNC machines.

The heroes of AS would not and did not say that rejecting religious faith is "willfull blindness". Galt's speech in particular said the opposite and none of the heroes embraced religion in any way.

It is possible in principle to explain color to a blind person even though he could not experience it directly -- science deals all the time with understanding through inference for aspects of reality we cannot directly perceive. Faith is the opposite of reason and science, not a form of perception.

There is no such thing as "the good fight" for religion on this forum, which is dedicated to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not it's enemies' fight against it.

Ayn Rand explained why her philosophy requires acknowledging the right of abortion. Objectivism rejects all forms of faith as the opposite of reason, including the religious notion of a soul and an entitlement to be born. The concept of rights depends on the concept of morality, neither of which pertain to the actions of the unborn. "Modern medicine" has not proved the "humanity of the unborn" in any way pertaining to the basis of rights and morality, and has not proved or endorsed religious dogma claiming otherwise. The "humanity" of the unborn means only the biological potential to become a human being. The difference in biological development, dependence and environment of the unborn is fundamentally different than having "passed through the birth canal". It is not a matter of "simply passing through a canal". Abortion on behalf of the rights and desire of the woman is not "barbaric". Religionists imposing a duty to have and raise children on those who don't want to is barbaric, for all the reasons explained by Ayn Rand.

he's a fine fellow, CG, and an advisor -- super friend!!! -- j
.

"I've been occupying my time building 3d printers and developing a line of CNC routers and mills - that's turning into a full time job! "
If AS were written in the age of today's technology, the heroes would say things like this.

Thank You, Michael. . we try. -- j
.

Esceptico, I have read every word of this thread, so far, and there have been
no comments alleging original sin, for example, except from the antagonists
trying to put words into my mouth. . I have said nothing about supernatural force,
nor "the savior" nor the "after life" -- my view is simple. . those kinds of
things are set aside in a category called "unknown" and toyed with
at will, for personal aggrandizement. . "faith" is a kind of unknown power
which is intriguing in its unknown nature. . it's like the confidence of
an Edison, working with hundreds of potential filaments. . there might be
a spiritual aspect to us humans after all. . place your bets, folks!!! -- j
.

have another up-vote for consistency, ewv!!! -- j
.

we humans nibble at the unknown constantly, with wonderful and
exciting results. . having confidence that this will continue is not
a kind of duality -- it's just life. . we can "know" God and have
"faith" at will, as long as we observe rationality with the information
at hand. . it is the prerogative of a being with a "soul" -- the essence
which we name that because of this confidence. -- j
.

I'm a parent and I'm not clear on what you're trying to convey. Could you add a little more?

it's a matter of perspective, isn't it? -- even by speculating that
an afterlife is possible, we would make decisions in a different way .......
more long-term, more "seasoned," more studiously considered. , yes? -- j
.

Yessir!!! . we have to have another view. . "rational being" will not work. -- j
.

That's the argument used, and it is a slippery slope argument. One can not define any fixed cutoff - even birth itself - if one determines that life only begins with reasoning faculties. Based on that argument, one fully has the right to terminate the life of a twelve-year-old with Down's Syndrome or some other cognitive disorder. From there, it is not a big step to move to eugenics or race-based or ethnic cleansing because one is relying on a humanistic view of which lives are valuable. It is dangerous territory.

Point taken, but I haven't met too many atheists who advocate for a continuance of existence after death. To me, you can't remain on the fence about such a crucial point because it affects morality and the meaning of life tremendously by affecting the scope of the consequences accompanying decisions. If existence of consciousness is not temporary - meaning constrained to this life - the consequences of our actions must necessarily carry over and affect anything to follow, making morality and decision-making into a much more extensive topic of discussion. Conversely, if one denies an existence after this, one advocates for the temporary with nihilism as the end state of consciousness. I really see only a binary decision tree, but if you have a third option I haven't considered, I'd certainly entertain it.

"... it's not proof that it is."

Granted. But given the alternative, which one are you really going to hope is true?

yet some fantasies can be fun -- bedroom fantasies, for example. -- j
.

Atheism, as a concept, does not embrace a rejection of morality or the idea that life is meaningless. So, you can't honestly package it with nihilism.

Just because you reeeaaallly value your consciousness, doesn't make it eternal...it's not proof that it is. Also, I like to keep in mind [ :) ] that the nature of our brains allows us to believe anything is 'true'—existence is always there as a fact checker.

the code of conduct indicates that we should not advocate faith. . my posting here
was and is not an attempt to do that. . it is instead a question about whether
people who are students of objectivism and Christian might make
good compatriots with those who are also students of objectivism
and non-Christian. . Thanks, Scott!!! -- john
.

The Gulch CoC is meant to be a guide for all members to refer to woodlema. Now might be a good time to have a look as a quick refresher: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f...

Thanks,
Scott

I find your comment "to be summarily removed" interesting coming from someone NOT flagged as a "producer."

I would think you of all people would be flagged as a producer as much as you consider yourself an Objectivist.

as is endless preaching about the categorical conflict between
objectivism and religion. -- j
/

Blarman, you put that very well indeed.

Some people fail to comprehend that basic premise, that your view on life and how you live life, has a direct bearing on your personal view of death.

Risk vs. Reward or perceived reward.
Your view of reality vs. my personal view of reality.
Your perception is your reality.

yes, and 51 years later, I am an objectivist who has personally integrated
the philosophy with a category of stuff set aside for further exploration
called "God" in which I have "faith." . you can have your opinion, ewv,
and I can have mine. . your repetitions are boring. -- j
.

but that faith which is a confidence in a positive possible outcome
is exactly what I am trying to advocate, here. . being positive
never hurt a discussion so much, I suppose. . but I had help. -- j
.