What in the world does a 'love-oriented view of reality' describe and for that matter what are you trying to describe with 'cold acidic view? Love is defined as an emotion and emotions are not necessarily reality or fact based and must be considered under rationality and logical reasoning before taking action on them.

Daniel, my personal intention is simple -- exploring the acceptance

of genuine, sincere people who all admire Rand. . my view is this:::

you can be objectivist in this world and use some common

delusional terms as social grace notes, for the sake of harmony,

while knowing in your heart that What You Know is limited. -- j

.

And we shouldn't support or accept that.

there must be millions who just "go along" -- in my view, it's a social thing. -- j

.

I think few could or would if they are capable of fully comprehending what that Oath means.

teeth might be better reserved for food, sir;;; here in the gulch

there are many who prefer a gentler touch!!! -- j

.

john; I think I've already answered directly to you in another post, but for others I'll discuss the topic here. In my experience on the site, the members are strongly tolerant of the closely held personal beliefs of others, even though those beliefs are in contradiction to Objectivist philosophy in a major way. The site has welcomed the opportunity on several occasions to discuss this issue in the past and it seems that the stronger Objectivists openly discuss their disagreements with religions and other supernatural beliefs of others in respectful manners. I'm certainly not aware of any type of purity test in order to join the discussion.

But proselytizing is frowned on quite strongly and hasn't been welcomed. This is after all a site for those that are fans of AR's work and AS, and for those that are drawn to the Objectivist philosophy, and those that are already strongly Objectivist in their lives and thinking. Those of us that are in that last group, generally want to discuss and assert the logical reasoning and rationality of a philosophy that provides for man's individual rights to live, to personally improve that life, to work for and earn achievement from the efforts of our minds, and to do that in full knowledge and recognition of the reality and empirical evidence of human life. Not from the beneficence of a supernatural being that can't be seen, heard, or otherwise sensed. Although we know that religions have been and currently are the major cause of hundreds of thousands of murder and suffering of humans throughout history and today, discussions of why that is true are readily accommodated if those discussions are based on logical reasoning and rational thinking.

tell 'em, Jan!!! -- j

.

That's their conflict.

Being an atheist is certainly not "too hard"; it is merely a rejection of the concept of the supernatural, of faith over reason, etc. Obj.ism requires the acceptance of specific fundamental values.

"that's me" is right, Jeff! . wouldn't it be possible that my body is

both mine and a temple, and it's up to me to make it so, by my choices?

wouldn't it be possible that a person could explore alternate

social interactions while professing Christianity? . we have free will,

and its use could well involve loving others regardless. -- j

.

The problem is that many who read the Bible don't hold their God to the same morality he supposedly holds them to. So any acts he sanctions or commits is above scutiny. Being a man of the mind requires you to live in reality. Galt pointed out that the men of the muscle (ignorant) and men of the heart (religious) can not be welcome because they will require people to live at the wants of another.

And in certain circumstances, retroactive...

well-seasoned view, Chief, also in my humble opinion. . I have

known people who Did Not Seek to Impose Their Views on Others

who were absolutely beautiful, creative, glorious people. -- j

.

there are some -- names withheld -- who confirm that daily. -- j

.

and yet, there are those who consider themselves Christian

who are essentially agnostic and use "faith terms" to label areas

where they just don't go, in their thinking. . the "too hard" pile on the desk. -- j

.

I vaguely remember that, too, and of course, the use of faith

to explain reality contradicts reason;;; it doesn't complement it!!! -- j

.

All I can say is, personally, "Welcome!"

I do not speak for anyone else in the Gulch but I note that there are a number of Christians and deists here. You will decide how you live your own life, but as long as how you interact with me is fairly and rationally, what you believe inside your own head is as much my business as how you behave in bed.

Jan, agnosto

The problem, of course, is that an infant is totally dependent on the mercy of it's parents or caregivers. They are not able to care for themselves for years. The requirement that a creature be able to survive on it's own efforts is not one we are willing to use for a definition.

Even in utero there is a point where the developing creature COULD exist outside of the mother. Roe v Wade recognized that this was a technical threshold.

Indeed, future technology might be able to capture the results of conception at any point in the process and preserve it independently.

I have no problem with you being Christian, but if Dino snaps teeth at me he will end up missing a few of them.

Jan, a lady but not a wuz

I don't get your meaning, john

Mention force? You did, when you suggested that Christians might only be allowed in if they swear to your oath regarding abortion and social choices. Further, what of atheists or persons of faith from religions other than Christianity who feel that abortion is morally wrong?

I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate on this one...if the Gultch is only for people of a single ideology, I certainly would want no part of it. Would you?

we really must acknowledge that the child is a part of

the woman's body until separation. . and there is nothing

immoral about severing an appendage. . but this is a dangerous

train of thought, because it is also obvious that there is a new

human when egg and sperm unite. . isn't it true, though, that

it is a human totally dependent on the mercy of the host? -- j

.

our different areas of knowledge and varied points of view

appear to allow more inventiveness in thought, don't you think??? -- j

.

VetteGuy, I appreciate your thoughtful approach!!! -- j

.