Christians believe in Christ, yes? Turning the other cheek, judge lest you be judged, you are your brother's keeper etc.? Those views are antithetical to Objectivism, to be perfectly honest. The trouble is you will find yourself constantly pulled toward the seduction of altruism and the sanction of the victim, as if by an incomprehensible magnet, and you won't know why. The reason is that you will have subconscious beliefs that tell you self-sacrifice is a noble ideal.

As John Lithgow says in Interstellar, "don't trust the right thing done for the wrong reason".

I seem to remember that Rand originally had a sympathetic priest character in AS that she dropped because she couldn't square his reliance on faith as a means of cognition with her philosophy. I'm guessing that she carried that mindset over into her personal life and would not have associated with anyone who was strongly religious. I also recall she was very negative on William Buckley for, among other things, his religious beliefs.

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 crude beginnings of scientific observation in Egypt were in spite of their religion not because of it. Any rational person "shirks" your religious proselytizing. You confuse rejection of your militant promotion of theology with "deriding" and "making fun" of it. People here have been more patient with you than you deserve. Take your religious promotions somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

He is referring to concepts that are well known and logical. Reality is not a "straw man". The "point of view" of an "alternate" mystic trance misusing words and concepts is not relevant.

Not sure if this was addressed yet, but according to Leonard Peikoff:
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

Move it to private.

I agree. I am retired and had a bit of time to see if I could wrap him around his own thoughts. I failed.

I am happy to accept an intelligible definition. Do you have one?

Wow, long thread, so forgive me (is that allowed in the Gulch? ;-) ) if I repeat someone else's thoughts.

Christians can certainly share the political and aesthetic aims of Objectivism: freedom, individual rights and limited government, and romantic realism in art. There is nothing in Christianity per se which says one should impose one's morality on others by force.

However it starts running into trouble with ethics: there, Christians can share a lot with Objectivists, but there is a strong stain of self-sacrifice in Christian morality which is not shared by Objectivism.

Runs into rather more trouble with epistemology: Objectivism allows nothing between your own mind and reality, whereas Christianity is at best once removed (taking its evidence from the written words of long-dead people whose beliefs are at best unreliable and at worse obviously fabricated) and at worst explicitly faith-based, placing faith above reason and evidence.

And of course it has a big problem with metaphysics, as Objectivism recognises no Gods. Though even there it isn't quite as bad as many Objectivists think, as one can believe in a God who is part of reality, part of existence.

So overall, the answer to the question depends on whether the purpose of the Gulch is to harbour a way of living together or a whole philosophy. Speaking for myself, I have no problems with Christians in the gulch, as long as any discussions of the anti-Objectivist aspects of religion are in the spirit of polite enquiry. And as long as they can honestly take "the oath" - which again personally, I believe the better type of Christian can in fact do.

Do we really believe that everyone here understands and abides by Galt's oath? For that matter has there really been much discussion of what it means and its implications?

I have no problem personally with Christians being here and think they have a place if and only if they don't make religious arguments here rather than ones based in reason. I am not here for that sort of thing and I likely would not react with much tact if it occurred.

I would say welcome, but some may not truly belong. I don't know what the ratio would be, but many Christians are inherently collectivist in thinking. The recent posts about gay marriage are perfect examples. The only thing they have to back up their "traditional marriage" (which has only existed for the last 150 years or so) is the very few anti-gay passages in a religious book. They see "types" of people needing to be controlled, and believe in rights or the restriction of rights for groups of people, not individuals.

There is also a contradiction between what Yeshua taught (I don't think he actually existed, but for arguments sake....) and objectivism. Drop everything, even your responsibilities to family, and follow me. Give your stuff to the poor. Love your enemies. All of that involves, essentially, living for someone else or giving others mastery over you. There are many more, look at the beatitudes (which actually came before Yeshua supposedly existed and attributed to Krishna - but again another day) That is a tricky problem.

Jefferson: " But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

When the pocket picking or leg breaking starts, then there is a problem.

I am a christian and I seem to be welcome here.

What's the matter with everyone, "can't you walk and chew gum." Or, a Revolutionary and a Philosopher and/or and "Walker between the Worlds". What is everyone here going to trip and kill themselves?

We can be Rational/Logical and Creative and Imagative Humans with private moments of faith. Ayn Rand was trying to create the "ubermench" for Atlas Shrugged. We all have alittle John Galt in us maybe some more than others. Some of us have the desire to soar above or walk in a more perfect world. Try as we might in the "Atlas Shrugged" path we a missing the personages that could facilitate the initial creation of the Gulch. We don't have churches to worship in the Gulch. We can create our own sanctuaries, Ayn Rand said nothing about that. Much of the Gulch is left up to our imaginations.

When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

— Ayn Rand , "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness

Clearly Ayn Rand would not ban Christianity or any other religion, she simply believed government should not interfere in such matters and that the church should not interfere with the government.

Of course not: an Obj.ist cannot hold such values.

As far as I am concerned, they would be welcome here in the (virtual) Gulch, as long as they abide by the basic rules. Basically, be respectful.

As far as whether they would be welcome in the (literary) Galt's Gulch as described in AS, I think that is an excellent question, and one that occurred to me as well. I think there could be some personal conflicts between the Oath, and some of the teachings of Christianity.

Great discussion starter! I look forward to seeing what others have to say, and will probably be back with some input when I have some time to ponder.

Thanks j.

You're right, they should and when asked most do. I was led to atheism through the Catholic church, as were hundreds of thousands of others, no doubt.

There are plenty of wise-asses like woodlema who will answer, "god is love" or "god is everything that is unknown and unknowable" when asked to define god - or the first definition s/he offered and repeated several times. But here's how I would define god from my Catholic upbringing and it seems to fit with most of the Christian beliefs I encounter these days.

[God is the being that created the universe and everything in it. He existed before the universe and he will exist after it's gone. He's all knowing and all powerful.]

You can get into the All Loving and the rest, but the more you add to what I wrote above the more you're "customizing" god for a particular religion. What I wrote is, I believe, universal among at least the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Maybe not. Perhaps the discussion will go on forever.

In the real Gulch if it comes into existance we are not there for any of the above query. None of that belongs in the Gulch! In place we are creators without the world watching and waitng to steal the next great idea.
It is where the creative,rational mind will thrive each step taken the closer that the inhabitants become the "Ubermench". Then these magnificent peoples will profit handsomely from their creations.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Since when do you have to sign up to a set of religious or social conventions to be free ? Go be yourself, you don't have to hide what you believe in, what is important is that you don't force people to give you unearned resources.

I am a "Galt guy" ... and "private Christian" so do what you want ... don't hurt anyone ... don't ruthlessly take anything from anyone without compensation. Don't judge anyone's motives or the outcome of their actions. The 9th Amendment makes most things legal ... the 10th Amendment allows the states (the "State") to deny those rights. ........... Me? I'll side with the 9th ... and organize my life around those who see things my way, my own personal 10th Amendment (my own "state" ... small "s" ... In my private time I'll worship God as I see fit. You do the same ... or not ... be well.