That answers the question about the time sequence after being "introduced" to Ayn Rand's ideas, but do you understand that you religion is the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy and Atlas Shrugged?

I really don't mean to insult you, but your statements are illogical, and at best are a mess.I will refrain from taking your statements apart because most of the Gulchers don't need me to do it as they already have done it mentally, hence your (lack of) points.

First I have not attempted to convert ANYBODY ergo I am not proselytizing.

Seems to me You and your fellow Atheists are the ones doing the proselytizing, but trying to convert us into Atheism.

When you mis-quote a scripture to try to make a point, my providing an explanation IN context is not proselytizing.

Also, your atheist pronouncements are no different, and your BELIEF is also based on your own personal faith.

Next just because I do understand the Bible, have studied it, Greek, Hebrew, the Koran, and dozens of other text over the past 50 years, is in no way "promoting" one belief system over another.

I do not recall EVER having said the Atheist is wrong and I am right.

Having studied some Law, one thing you are taught is to be able to provide arguments from both sides.

To have the capacity to provide a detailed explanation of a topic does mean you promote it over another.

Your an atheist and believe in nothing that is fine. I actually believe in God and THAT IS ALSO FINE!!!

I do not have my beliefs based on blind faith since I have the ability to delve into mathematical evidence proving that the complexities could not have been "random" based on a "SCIENTIFIC" principal known as a mathematical impossibility and/or improbability

You and I would always be at a stalemate since you and I cannot prove what we believe, you there is no God me that there is.

This is not proselytizing since I am not the least bit interested in converting you only providing the explanation to the misquoted scriptures.

Just because you do not "like" the answers does not mean they are inaccurate.

Why do it at all? I do what I do for MY sake and ONLY my sake and for my own personal Benefit and for my own satisfaction.

Hrm, sounds objectivist to me.


edited for spelling and grammar

The reasons for rejecting your religious proselytizing have been given many times. It is contrary to the purpose of this forum. Giving reason for rejecting your religious pronouncements and your promotion of them here is not "bullying" and has nothing to do with "grades". If you don't care if anyone likes what you are doing then why do it at all. You can believe what you want. It doesn't belong here.

I get such a kick out of the negative points people post vs. the positive ones.

Reminds me of the liberal college professors who give A grades to people who simply agree with them and bad grades to those who do not.

Nothing more than those who want to try and bully others into their way of thinking by assuming I actually care if you like my comment or not.

So much for "tolerance."

You should read further to see how her philosophy explains rejecting belief in the supernatural entirely.

Who has an open mind quickly has it filled with garbage. We have active minds, not minds open to anything regardless of contradictions with what we do know.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism is the opposite of Christianity including its "ethic" of duty and sacrifice, and its metaphysics and epistemology of supernaturalism and faith. There is a lot more to it than consensual trade and a lot more to it than a-philosophical libertarian subjectivism. You should keep reading.

What's an 'ethnic Christian'?

Guess you missed the old guy with the white beard and robe sitting on the cloud :-)

There is no such thing as a very objective Christian, and religion is a lot more destructive than an excuse for population control.

The "atheism thing" is rational consequence of objectivity and reason. Atheism means to not believe in the supernatural. It means you don't believe it. It explicitly rejects various claims as impossible depending on what they are. It someone utters self contradictions, as is typically the case, then it can't exist. Otherwise the lack of evidence alone means to reject it out of hand as if it had never been said, not taking it seriously in any way. It doesn't mean "maybe". A statement of possibility requires proof.

No and no. And to answer your challenge to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow:
F = G (mM/r^2)
F = m * dr/dv = m* d^2r/dt^2
therefore
m dv/dt = G (mM)/r^2

etc.

You should continue reading, especially the non-fiction such as Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. With that kind of understanding you will be much better off than just lacking the "urge".

In affirmation of ewv's comments: YES.

So what? Rational people know how to make rational inferences using their conceptual reasoning powers, as illustrated in the discoveries of gravitation, electromagnet fields and waves, and the atomic structure of matter. The process is not arbitrary and is the opposite of faith. That things may exist that we don't yet know about is not justification for asserting whatever you feel like. When you don't know, stop talking.

Yes and yes

No faith is similar to the scientific process. They are opposites.

If you still don't understand why the sun rises then you don't understand science or its nature, and are still thinking in pre-Galileo Christian apologetics. None of the sophistry is a coherent argument against science, the Enlightenment, and Ayn Rand. This is a forum for those who appreciate Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism, and the sense of life they made possible in Atlas Shrugged.

It is more than a matter of claiming isolated evidence. Religious beliefs are conceptually incoherent and have no explanatory value. Faith is the diametric opposite of reason and rational thought, and in particular to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Yes, and yes.

It doesn't depend on a false definition based on mysticism. The question is about what one philosophically believes is true.

As for the second question, which was based on the premise of the first, it is clear that many of those who in the comments proclaim to still be religious are very confused about Ayn Rand's ideas, religion, or both. The question said only "introduced" to Ayn Rand's ideas, but has frequently been replaced with "agree with" in responses.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism are fundamentally opposed to Christian supernaturalism, faith, duty, sacrifice and other worldliness. It is not possible to believe both in either intellectual approach or content.

Those of any prior philosophical outlook, not just religion, who have been attracted to Ayn Rand's sense of life and to Atlas Shrugged should learn the philosophy that made them possible and without which they cannot be defended.

Interesting. Yours is the only No/Yes answer I have seen. Thanks for sharing and providing some background.

Yes.
No - I'm Jewish (and Objectivist, of course).

Imagine being Abraham. You're 100 years old, and your wife is 90. God tells you to look at the stars (in the desert, meaning there are a host of them); He then tells you that your descendants will be like the stars in the heavens, but you're 100, and you don't have a child yet. Abraham's rational self told him that that was impossible, but his faith in God allowed him to believe that it was possible, and that faith (and acting on it) led to hundred of millions of descendants (through Ishmael and Isaac). Was Abraham being stupid by believing in God, and acting on His promise? How about the 10,000 tries Edison made in creating a working lightbulb? How about Newton, seeing an apple fall from a tree, and making up the theory of gravitation? We could go on, but you'll notice that in none of these cases did Abraham or the inventors have solid proof of where they were headed, but they went ahead anyway, and the results became history. In most cases, innovation and invention (including the establishment of dynasties) have nothing to back them up, but the belief of the inventor/discoverer/founder; there is no "rational" reason for them to believe what they believe, but their faith led to revolutionary outcomes. Even though their faith may only be a small percentage of the total number of efforts, it is enough to support the fact that faith, sometimes in the face of overwhelming odds against, can be fruitful.

Before, knew Jesus tried to give us value and those in 'authority'...pretty much misguided.
After, know that Jesus gave us value...but in bicameral speak; But would never consider myself a 'christian' so to speak, that is a mystical organization. (can't do mystical)
My introduction to Rand and Hamilton didn't change anything except my understanding of what I had always tried to articulate for myself.

Yes
Yes