True. Amusement is what got me started in this thread along with the thought that somebody who is in the Gulch would have enough intellectual curiosity / honesty to apply their reasoning power to grasp the fundamental issue. It has been a disappointment to see the same old tired and long defeated arguments dragged out. But,hope springs eternal, right?

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

You also have no proof that we "have to" be created.

Altruism is hatred of ones self.

...and as long as non-Objectivists are willing to enter into rational discourse, they are welcome to the Gulch. When they start proselytizing, they should go elsewhere as this is not the place for it.

So then your saying all these other Brilliant well respected scientists are foolish twits with no sense of reality?

Well, I will again repeat, the same thing I mentioned above. "I have exactly as much proof of God as you have there is none. This is and has always been the basis for the major disagreement, and extreme dogmatism on both sides of the discussion."

And since you also have NO proof, that there is no God or Intelligent Creator, then you also intern are offering simple fallacy to deny the possibility of a superior authority, i.e. God which places you and I exactly on the same level of reason. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

Interesting, I find it interesting that Aristotle and St. Thomas had anything in common. I will have to delve more deeply into that, "But me thinks thou hast beat the flat iron into a circle!" [sfdi2015]

The story of Johanne the anointer is fascinating, too. Especially the part with Salome.

Hardly any thing worse than a knotted up amygdala!

Faith is essentially the destruction of knowledge because no amount of reason can be exerted to penetrate the shield of faith to reach a religious person's mind. A religious mind is impervious to reason which is why I rarely bother to engage in fruitless efforts such as this Gulch post. I merely decided to amuse myself today.

I will reference a comment I made to another similar question on this thread.
Luke 6:32-35
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
-The opposite of trading value for value. This is commanding us to give up our values to those from who we would not expect any value in return: giving our love to the wicked, our our good works to those who do us harm, and our money to those who will only ask for more. A rationally selfish person would only love someone worthy of their love. A Christian is expected to love their enemies. That, to a rationally selfish person, is an abasement of the concept of love, as love is an emotional response to seeing your highest values reflected in another. To give such a high value to someone who would do you harm lowers the value of the love to which you provide those who share your values.

Altruism is not just about giving money to the poor, but about trading value for something of less or no value. If you give to someone and it makes you happy, then that is trading value for value. If you attempt to give love to your enemy and get hurt in return, that is altruism and is exactly what Christianity espouses.

Sorry, based upon your writing here, I'm not ready to accept your definition of "fine people"

Yes.
She didn't view herself as a product of a mind and that there is a mind behind the "product".
I have found that Objectivism has only two minor flaws:
1) God isn't "religion"
2) Yes, existence exists BUT life is a product of a mind.

Ok but if I get a demerit its your fault.

Since you did not pick one I will.

Esceptico used a set of scriptures to indicate the Bible is evil, and full of "Murders." I will pick the one he used about hating parents Luke 14:26 and logically show you how this is misquoted and totally out of context.

I could go on with more scriptures using parallels and metaphors but I hope the point is made. Every Scripture used below in Esceptico's post is not used IN context and is cited wrongly in order to prove a point that is totally lost because each citation is misapplied.

Webster
Lu 14:26 If any man cometh to me, and hateth not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Basic English
Lu 14:26 And turning round, he said to them, If any man comes to me, and has not hate for his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even for his life, he may not be my disciple.

Jesus often used parables, and stories as well as other forms of metaphor to put into context what was being discussed.
Henry concise discusses this passage.
The Jews, as such, should have no part in it. But those who entered in must count the cost (v. 25-33). All must be forsaken in this world; every link with this world must be broken. The nearer anything was to the heart, the more dangerous, the more it must be abhorred.
IN context Jesus was discussing what it took to become his follower. We see similar things with our military when certain people are being selected for specific roles.
The full passage in context was an evening meal when Jesus was discussing things with the Pharisees who were trying to “trick” him.
Jesus was making a point that in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom of God things of this earth must be abhorrent to you. Those ties that bind you to something prevent you from seeking out something else.
To simply parse out “Everyone should hate their parents, wives and children.” And state the God wants you to hate your family is WRONG and a very incorrect statement when you look at the situation in full context. Following up in the next verses he talks about counting the cost of taking on a task. Parallels following him with counting the cost of building, or of a King going into battle. Remember Jesus said over and over his Kingdom was not of this earth, therefore you would have to “forsake” everything to be part of that Kingdom.
Peoples NT comments this way.
LU 14:26 26, 27. If any man come to me. See notes on Matt. 10:37, 38. Hateth not his own father. In just the same sense that he hates his own life also. That is, these must all be given up, turned away from, if we have to choose between them and Christ.
LU 14:28 28-33. Doth not sit down first and count the cost? This calculation of what any enterprise or step will require before entering upon it is the part of wisdom. So, too, a disciple of Christ should count the cost. It is well to understand that every obstacle to the service of Christ must be given up.

14 On another occasion he went to eat a meal in the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath, and they were closely watching him. 2 And look! a man who had dropsy was in front of him. 3 So in response Jesus asked those versed in the Law and the Pharisees: “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they kept silent. With that he took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him away. 5 Then he said to them: “Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” 6 And they were not able to reply to this.
7 He then told the invited men an illustration when he noticed how they were choosing the most prominent places for themselves. He said to them: 8 “When you are invited by someone to a marriage feast, do not recline in the most prominent place. Perhaps someone more distinguished than you may also have been invited. 9 Then the one who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Let this man have your place.’ Then you will proceed with shame to take the lowest place. 10 But when you are invited, go and recline in the lowest place, so that when the man who invited you comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, go on up higher.’ Then you will have honor in front of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Next he said also to the man who had invited him: “When you spread a dinner or an evening meal, do not call your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors. Otherwise, they might also invite you in return, and it would become a repayment to you. 13 But when you spread a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.”
15 On hearing these things, one of the fellow guests said to him: “Happy is the one who dines in the Kingdom of God.”
16 Jesus said to him: “A man was spreading a grand evening meal, and he invited many. 17 He sent his slave out at the hour of the evening meal to say to the invited ones, ‘Come, because everything is now ready.’ 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I bought a field and need to go out and see it; I ask you, have me excused.’ 19 And another said, ‘I bought five yoke of cattle and am going to examine them; I ask you, have me excused.’ 20 Still another said, ‘I just got married, and for this reason I cannot come.’ 21 So the slave came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out quickly to the main streets and the alleys of the city, and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22 In time the slave said, ‘Master, what you ordered has been done, and still there is room.’ 23 So the master said to the slave, ‘Go out to the roads and the lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24 For I say to you, none of those men who were invited will taste my evening meal.’”
25 Now large crowds were traveling with him, and he turned and said to them: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his torture stake and come after me cannot be my disciple. 28 For example, who of you wanting to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers would start to ridicule him, 30 saying: ‘This man started to build but was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king marching out against another king in war does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with 10,000 troops to stand up to the one who comes against him with 20,000? 32 If, in fact, he cannot do so, then while that one is yet far away, he sends out a body of ambassadors and sues for peace. 33 In the same way, you may be sure that not one of you who does not say good-bye to all his belongings can be my disciple.
34 “Salt, to be sure, is fine. But if the salt loses its strength, with what will it be seasoned? 35 It is not suitable for soil or for manure. People throw it away. Let the one who has ears to listen, listen.”

I knew that you would "get it".

Thanks for confirming why reason and faith cannot co-exist.

If we were anyplace but the Gulch, I would have been long gone by now. I give "them" some credit for even brushing with truth---it may be as close as they ever get. Thank you for your support.

Brilliant people or not, what you offer is the Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), which, in this case, is not good enough. The reason it is not good enough is none of them present (1) an intelligible definition of the god or (2) adduce evidence to support its existence. The intelligible definition must be the core quesetion before proceeding forward.

The Gulch is filled with atheists---Including you. As Dawkins famously said: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed. Some of us just go one God further.”

Well stated and well reasoned. I, too, hesitate to get involved with any attempt to reason with someone who will accept faith as an equivalent path to knowledge. Faith is essentially the destruction of knowledge because, as you stated, no amount of reason can be exerted to penetrate the shield of faith to reach a religious person's mind.

Just what "error in your arguments" did you point out? All I see are assertions.

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 respectfully disagree. You made an assertion, and I merely challenged it by requesting an example. An example does not have to be a "different topic or set of messages". It should consist of a simple statement of fact that can be either verified or challenged further.

You have proven the inherent disconnect and contradictory nature of Christianity. Pride modified or tempered with humility is assuming that humility is also a positive value. It is not.
Self-denial in the name of "the group" is exactly what is so evil about socialism and all other forms of collectivism.