IMHO because too many objectivist have run it only as a head trip. They never got deep down to the very core of their being and at their emotional roots that the real value of objectivist ethics is the fulfillment of their own lives. They never got all the way down that they themselves are the highest value and that how large the value is is completely up to them.

Too much energy has been wasted on talmudic dissections especially of one another.

If my experiences are already judged by you to be "the utmost nonsense and self imposed delusion", what would be the point of sharing them? You've already made up your mind. What you choose to believe is up to you, just as what I choose to believe is up to me. I wish you well on your path.

Objectivism is not more widely adopted because it relies on prescription of self-interest and proscription of God. It fails to convince those who prescribe to self-interest prior to the elucidation offered by AS. It fails to convince those who prescribe to a Diest god (similar to the FF) why it differs in practice from a "constitution and capitalism" version of American values. Most of all, it does not intend on presenting it's argument through force, which, unfortunately, is a language to which populations have grown accustomed and/or addicted.

So Cruz went against Apple too. This is arguably veiled attempt at eliminating all encription

As I said, 'Get serious, or hush and let the adults in the room talk'. If you can't express whatever you have to say in a forum, them it can't be very serious or replicatable by adults.

My background should be obvious to anyone reading my comment. The down-vote should be obvious. You appear to be interested in spreading and justifying what I consider to be the utmost nonsense and self imposed delusionl

"What Objectivists require is objective and repeatable evidence..."

That all depends on whether or not one has already made up one's mind and convinced themselves that such proof can not exist and as a result deny anyone and anything that claims the contrary. If you want to pm me, I can tell you exactly how it may be done, but it isn't the subject for a forum. I will say only that I know for myself the truth of the matter.

I don't know your background so I can't comment other than to say I don't hold to that particular version of things. How each decides to live his life is his choice and his alone to make. Each must choose the rules by which he/she is going to live their life and accept the consequences. That you have chosen to take control of your life is a noteworthy event. Many do not choose to do so.

One question, however: why the downvote?

You continue to attempt to misrepresent Rand, Objectivsm, and objective atheism. What Objectivists require is objective and repeatable evidence that agrees with an objective theory or hypothesis which can then be used to predict actual actions, inter-actions, and effect by others.

Constant harping based on subjective beliefs and feelings of wanting to believe in 'something', and argument based on asking others to prove a negative is juvenile and is not information that is useful to the life of men. Are you next going to ask an Objectivist to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that a butterfly's wing flapping in the Amazon doesn't cause hurricanes in the US, or that the Universe doesn't have 7 more dimensions that man can't experience or detect?

Get serious, or hush and let the adults in the room talk.

I took it as ruler. Thanks for the clarity!

ed; I use the word in the context of 'expert' on the subject matter. Certainly not in the context of boss or ruler.

Not only have I considered your proposal, I was born into that world of delusion. A world in which one is taught that life should be lived in service to a god and others, a world in which one should accept the conditions he's born into, that the amount of suffering one accepts and lives under with a smile is a test of his faith and love of his god, that god has revealed to the world his rules for your life interpreted for him by god's book and his preachers, and that one should spread that nonsense to everyone else--that god will reward such slavery, suffering, acceptance, obedience, and altruism with immortality after death on this earth.

Through some magical transformation, god will pull some part of one out of his physical body and transport it to a magical kingdom of god's where his family and angels awaits him, and he can continue on for ever and ever with no more pain and suffering, even with perfect restoration of any defects suffered or incurred in earthly life. Just reject life and trust god to take care of one after death.

What utter delusional nonsense.

Wow. +100 if I could.

Though to be nitpicky, it's Padme ;)

Yeah. Some speculate that Jar-Jar Binks wasn't the only thing that turned people off about the movie...

Nah... :D

Oh, I completely agree there.

Either that, or its the Senate chambers on Coruscant. ;)

When you are able to isolate the midi-chlorians, perhaps then you will be able to convince others.

trolling, along with any negative/differing views.

But the Fed arguably is a Sith temple.

Part of Jedi training is to face the Dark Side and reject it. It is something every Jedi must do before becoming a Master and is why the Jedi Council were reluctant to grant the title to Anakin.

That being said, it's pretty hard not to turn to the Dark Side when that is all you are surrounded by. The Fed certainly is no Jedi temple. ;)

I always thought of the Force more as ESP described as feelings because there really was no better word. It was an ability to recognize and draw on powers beyond the normal senses. I find the concept fascinating, and judging by the number of Star Wars fans, I feel safe in saying I am not alone in that regard.

That's why most of us get the annual subscription.

It might be an interesting idea to look into: limiting the number of posts per day/month for guest users.

I would strongly argue to the contrary. Rand's postulations are all about proof and the use of the scientific method to explore such. It seems the epitome of hypocrisy to insist on maintaining the position that god can not exist and that no proof of such a position is necessary when the consistent argument used by proponents of atheism is the call for theists to prove their side of the argument. One can not have it both ways. If one is going to insist that no proof of one side is necessary, one should be consistent in allowing the other side the same latitude.

That is a good point. But General Relativity also existed prior to Einstein so I would argue that he put it to words and made it understandable. He did not create it. I would however consider both of them to be extreme experts in each subject based on their work. I in no way want to diminish what they have done. For me it is more the word authority than anything. But that is just me. :)

Well said.

I agree that for us it is not a difficult concept, but I will give you an insight into a factor you may or may not have considered - duration. Most of a "religious" persuasion believe that death is not a termination of existence, but a doorway into the next phase of existence. Thus the meaning of happiness may be significantly different from one person to the next depending on the duration in which they are considering the question.

It is not an infrequent criticism of many progressive economic policies that they fail for the very same reason: they consider only the short-term benefits (and usually only those attributed to a small population) rather than the long-term benefits and broader implications. For those who believe in a consciousness which persists past this life, they postulate an existence of degrees dependent on certain actions and choices here which in turn afford privileges and opportunities there. Does that mean that all such postulations are logically coherent? Perish the thought. There can only be one reality. So the challenge is to determine what characteristics would lead to a future beyond the grave resulting in the most happiness. I have no doubt that Rand hit upon several of these. But in invoking atheism, one effectively walls themselves off from exploration of such a concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.

ed; That kind of strikes me as like saying Einstein shouldn't be considered the authority on General Relativity.