"Currency" Inflation in the Gulch
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Unless you use a broader definition than this one. If you start from the realm of purpose in life and belief sets, religion and philosophy are very similar: they just differentiate on the origination of purpose. Religion holds that purpose originates outside of man and that man may aspire to fulfill such a purpose. Philosophy holds that man defines his/her own purpose. It is why the debate over atheism/deism is IMHO fundamental to any discussion of philosophy or religion. Until one defines purpose, one can not define values.

You choose to use a definition that would not cover many existing religions, including yours.

Dictionary.com:
Religion: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

I choose to use a definition which covers all forms of religion and is not restrictive to specific subsets.

As we have discussed before, we cannot agree on the definition of the term so there is little point in arguing it.

Once again, a nice straw man to say. I have a religion which has the belief there is no god and I do not have to prove there is no god. You are simply stating it a different way to attempt to remove the burden of proof.

You can reject the "supernatural" whatever that is as you see fit. I am not stopping you, nor do I want to.

Not sarcastic in the least. There are key figures, like Senators Paul, Inhofe, Lankford, just to name a few who have witnessed the advantages of a free market (Inhofe is an enthusiastic supporter of small entrepreneurs, having seen what fed the growth of the energy industry in Oklahoma) and are all on record against government subsidies.

Ironically, I believe that Trump could be the most willing to use the Presidential "bully pulpit" for just the purpose of shaming Congress into acting on constitutionally justifiable actions like this. Cruz would also be aggressive on this particular action, but inconsistent with respect to favored exceptions.

Nagging our relative congresscritters about singular good ideas is something we should do. As you might guess, I'm like Dagny, not yet willing to shrug.

However you wish to twist it around Ewv, the result is Atheism is religious belief in no god.

The post is some nice spin on a stawman to say why you do not need to prove there is no god in order to say there is no god.

I downvoted him because he takes it upon himself to rephrase and intentionally misinterpret what I (and others) say and pronounce his interpretations of my statements as authoritative on my behalf. If I have the right to the products of my mind as Objectivism claims, then he violates the very principles he holds dear when he attempts to hijack my posts. He is more than welcome to inquire as to my meaning and understanding, but beyond that he is violating his own professed beliefs.

I also downvote him when he engages in personal attacks. No one is forced to agree with what is said here on this forum. It is a place for open debate and individual consideration. But a real debater doesn't resort to logical fallacies and name-calling, they come up with a better argument. Vitriol and hate are the realm of emotion - not logic.

Edit:


Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and accept it.

Should read:

Each person has to walk there own path to understand reality and integrate it.

Khalling, amazed you did not call me out on that.

Much like Anakin Skywalker, Alan Greenspan did not complete his training and turned to the Dark Side.

There was a ldiscussion on the topic of the Gulch "point" system being used to implement something like this. Sorry don't have the link handy.

I wonder what she'd have done if she saw how Alan Greenspan turned out.

OK. No harm, no foul.

Interpretation of reality may be nuanced by the abilities of the observer. Some observations of reality should be clear. Some are limited, for example, by technology. More frequently, interpretation is biased by previous experiences which may have mimicked reality to a point, but may not be reality under different circumstances.

No, I am not advocating the removal of E-mail notification. I'm saying that a system like reddit's will be more helpful, since this site seems to be based on the comment system.

But what does he live for ? You have explained how one might live under Objectivism, but not the purpose or the why. Hope is all about purpose and everyone lives seeking purpose. Value is always measured against purpose or goals.

Yes, right after the objectivists take control of con-gress. (sarcasm)
Are you being sarcastic, too?
If not, how do you expect to get a majority of con-gress to vote for it?
(I agree with the goal, but expecting con-gress to reduce their own power is like expecting gravity to stop.)

I never suggested you used the word "accept." Others in the thread did, however, and my reply was to them.

Would you regard John Galt as an alpha personality? I certainly would. I have known some alpha males that very much fit the media/psychology character as overbearing and obnoxious, and some I admired and enjoyed, while others were hard to either respect or want to follow.

I agree that any effort to try to box humans into descriptive boxes should be viewed with skepticism, as each of us is as unique as our fingerprints. However, like most scientific constructs, I recognize the necessity to engage in such characterizations.

Among the primates, humans do share some of the violent hierarchical motivations of the chimpanzee and baboon. We also share some of the more subtle, nonviolent methods of the bonobo, and the introvert obsession with privacy of the orangutan. We are the most complex primate.

Great idea! This is something that Congress could accomplish that is defendable in Federal courts. I think the element of success would be to include reference to the equal treatment clause in the Constitution, which would lay the groundwork for a mandatory return to a real free market.

To be fair to the Objectivist Party, the number of contributors in this forum isn't exactly all that high either. There are many members, but the majority of them have under 200 points.

It is not a misrepresentation. Until I started to become more active in the last few days, this place had become boring. Even khalling made a point about it in her "I'm bored" post.

Just like you should know that in my response that prompted all this that I didn't use the word "accept", as you misread it. I was acknowledging that I was in the "admiring" category.

The Dark and Middle Ages had little education for anyone other than theology. To be an intellectual was to be a monk or the equivalent. The intellectualism, such it was at all, was a combination of neo-platonism and Christian mysticism and apologia. Some interesting history is Laistner, Christiantiy and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire.

The anti-life on this earth mentality under religion was overwhelmingly nihilistic. Most of the Greeks, including Aristotle, was lost to everyone throughout the period. It kept them in that state for a thousand years in which almost nothing changed.

Humanity eventually pulled out of it, but it's not exactly the recommended approach.

Except for some in the universities today, most schools are simply regurgitating bad premises, including the political sophistry even though the events change. As the rot spreads, it becomes more extreme. But government did not cause the bad ideas, it locks them in by subsidizing them and monopolizing. Under today's dominant ideas, get rid of the education monopoly, if it could be done at all, and it would snap back into place. The battle is philosophical, while doing whatever can be done to maintain freedom of speech and getting around government control of education.

Please use frequent paragraph breaks and let the lines fill out without forced line breaks for these narrow columns. It makes it a lot more readable. No college degree required :-)

Thanks for the link. Maybe all five of them (or whatever) support it! Very small fringe groups have been talking about an "Objectivist" political party since at least the 1970s, but no such "political party" has been serious in real politics or ever represented Ayn Rand or the vast majority of those interested in Objectivism.

It's not something to cite as anything meaningful other than for a few people (who of course mean it). Ayn Rand used to fight these things claiming to speak for her, even legally when necessary, but she is gone and anyone can claim to somehow represent what she said. It's now up to those who know better to properly assess it. It's best to simply refer to what Ayn Rand wrote in analyzing things like immigration.