From a letter Ayn Rand wrote to John Hospers in 1961:

"To answer your remark on a philosophical level, I will say that there are over three hundred sects of Christianity, all of which interpret the Bible differently and all of which claim to be the only true version of Christianity. Since I reject the basic premises of the Bible and of Christianity as untenable, I do not consider it incumbent upon me to discuss or refute (or even to study) the particular interpretation of every one of the three-hundred-some sects. And if I were to discuss the issue with a philosophically-minded Christian, it is the basic premises that I would discuss."

--- from Letters of Ayn Rand edited by Michael Berliner and Leonard Peikoff. https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ayn-Ra...

I think that that is confused with a quote from a remark made by Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged. He said that, and added (as I recall) "And I want to claim the greatest virtue--that I was a man who made money."

Me dino sez you and your friends have every right to enjoy your opinions about that.
The First Amendment enforces the full freedom of religion. Even not being forced to have one.unlike back during the not so good old days.

I have a family Bible from the 1800s, an interesting family heirloom with family names and dates recorded in a large antique book. But the content is no better than any other version. Myths passed down from thousands of years ago is not a source of knowledge about anything other than what primitive people allegedly believed thousands of years ago, which ideas led to the collapse of Western civilization in the Dark and Middle Ages.

Mainly history expressed in mystical terms, turns out to be very valuable as you may soon find out.
(Ref, private invite to a private conversation).

sarc on

One or two contributors here have the incredible ability to read minds, they know what we think, what we do not think, this is on top of knowing what we should think.
But now moving to a touch of modesty and reticence, there is this statement referring to the current thoughts of Ayn Rand, d. 1982,
" I wonder what she thinks now .." This means that while the writer does not know, the writer implies that thinking is currently occurring, and there is the implication that the writer really does know.

The dead have risen and their thoughts are known to an elite, and soon The Truth shall be known to all.

sarc off

The "Golden Rule" is not applicable to any religion that advocates the use of force against non-believers. It also does not apply to philosophies such as nihilism or subjectivism, or philosophies that advocate unconditional obedience to authority.

My problem with the 'Golden Rule' is that it is not a good governing rule. It calls for one to become a nuscience to those whom one deals with. Much better is the 'don't do to others what you do not like'
which is a governing rule. It is like saying do not harm others and not like saying to doing something to others which can be harmful but is just great for those into sadomasochism.

No. Literally, yes, it does apply to "just about any philosophy" but it does not apply to Objectivism. See Solver's one-liner in reply. The error in the so-called Golden Rule is the assumption that everyone values the same things in the same way.

Have you never done a favor for a friend who did not appreciate it? If not hostile (friendship being the context), they were ambivalent and unappreciative. Their values were not yours.

As a literal statement the Golden Rule fails.

You may want to interpret it as a broad intention for justice. We call it the equal recognition of the rights of others. But realize that it is very easy to construct social situations in which that does not apply. You buy a seaside site and build your home on it. Someone comes along and buys the shoreline and puts up a skyscraper that blocks your view. Do you go to the Planning Commission? Do you sue in court? Do you sell and and move on? What you do has not much to do with their rights. Hell, Howard Roark blew up a building... Could you do that to protect your highly putative "property rights" to a seaside sunset?

Yes, if someone were drowning and if you were qualified and prepared, you might choose to jump in and save them, perhaps on the assumption that if it were you then you would want the same. Myself, I am a volunteer first responder (not for swimming) but I signed up and got trained and go to drills not because I would want someone to do the same for me. I can take care of myself and I am prepared to do so. My motivation is expressed in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar and Miidas explain that it is in their self-interest to see society rebuilt as soon as possible. So, too, for me. I am capable, competent, and trained to respond to a large-scale disaster. The sooner we all get back to normal, the better it is for me. Their happiness is not my concern.

Moreover, as for the drowning victim, some curmudgeon here might reply, "If I am stupid enough to be drowning in the first place, then let me go because I am unworthy of living." (Just sayin'...).

Except it seems to assume that each individual seems to value the same things the same way.