Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why They Fear Us
The Rational Argumentator ^ | December 26, 2003 | Henry Emrich

Posted on 12/30/2003 10:29:35 AM PST by G. Stolyarov II

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-284 next last
To: sauropod
Hitler and Saddam were atheists which makes their govt one. Not so much their society, but their governing style. Cared little for anyone.
41 posted on 12/30/2003 11:00:41 AM PST by smith288 (Secret member of the VRWC elite forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Yeah, essentially it is. Objectivists, however, are deliberately obtuse about this, as it is the fundamental underpinning of the philosophy, so you have to explain the obvious fifty different ways to find a chink in their armor of denial.
42 posted on 12/30/2003 11:00:43 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
Reads like elitist swill, if you ask me. The author seeks to lump all "conservatives" into the same basket, but what he actually accomplishes is to advertise the sad limits of his own sophistry, and show how poor and bankrupt his narrow opinions are. Generally, I enjoy discussions with the true objectivists, as I do with the true subjectivists, as they usually bring a sense of excitement and discovery to their arguments. The writer of this pap, however, casually discounts anything not conforming to his own established parameters of what is acceptable, and thus he serves only to stymie constructive discourse.
43 posted on 12/30/2003 11:00:55 AM PST by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
I am not exclusionist, but I am a staunch supporter of full separation of Church and State.

Dept of Redundancy Dept.

44 posted on 12/30/2003 11:01:51 AM PST by smith288 (Secret member of the VRWC elite forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
You've hit the nail on the head. The essence of Objectivism is a denial of the actual subjectivity of the Objectivist's point of view.

Did I say that? Reading it makes my brain hurt.

But, yes, I guess I said that.

;)

Shalom.

45 posted on 12/30/2003 11:02:13 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dutchgirl
"Would a quick look at the sale of books relating to the topic of Christianity be considered "evidence" of thought to this "rational thinker?"

No it wouldn't. They have an arrogant conceit as I spelled out in No. 4.

All you have to do is read their writings and it leaps right out at you.

46 posted on 12/30/2003 11:02:18 AM PST by sauropod (Excellence in Shameless Self-Promotion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II; sauropod
Gospodin Stolyarov:

Sauropod is correct. There are many of us who have both the intellectual apparatus and training at the graduate level to think, and do in fact think very deeply about our religion. It is arrogant to dismiss our community of faith as shallow thinkers. The posted article is both incorrect and poorly written.

I can speak as a 61-year old former atheist who has come, by the grace of Messiah, Y'shua, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, into a relationship with the Lord. Relationship of love and grace - not merely a 'religion.' Further, please feel free to Freep mail me privately and I will respond thoughtfully.
47 posted on 12/30/2003 11:02:55 AM PST by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
Do you realize that being a "staunch supporter" of "separation of Church and State" puts you directly at odds with the founders of our nation?

How does an Objectivist reconcile that with the plain language of the First Amendment, which demands, in essence, indifference to religion with respect to government, and not separation?

48 posted on 12/30/2003 11:03:27 AM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
But I am not willing to embrace certain Christians' claims that America is fundamentally a religious country, nor will I sanction their attempts to employ the coercive powers of the State to in any manner impede on anyone's religious freedom.

Point #1: Just because that is "certain Christians' claims" does not make it a Christian concept.

Point #2: America did have a Christian concept of right and wrong through the 1920s or so. That is an objective fact, whether you like it or not. And nobody's freedom was ever infringed by that fact.

Shalom.

49 posted on 12/30/2003 11:04:41 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
"But I am not willing to embrace certain Christians' claims that America is fundamentally a religious country..."

Then you ignore history.

"...nor will I sanction their attempts to employ the coercive powers of the State to in any manner impede on anyone's religious freedom."

If the State were equally tolerant of all religions then I would agree with you.

The State is not equally tolerant of Christianity compared with Islam or even Judiasm. The latter are favored as we saw at Christmas time.

"...but I am a staunch supporter of full separation of Church and State."

Itself an unConstitutional and unhistorical view.

50 posted on 12/30/2003 11:06:34 AM PST by sauropod (Excellence in Shameless Self-Promotion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
I was reading Rand long before most people were born. Fountainhead was a cheap drunk and a course of psychotherapy.

I have two serious problems with Rand.

1) She is no longer alive and is hence unable to defend herself from people who claim to be her disciples.

2) She is Wagnerian in the sense of seeking the glorified position of emotionally sterile all-powerful aweing Germanic gods. It is a hollow life.

51 posted on 12/30/2003 11:06:54 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: smith288
Hitler and the Nazis motivated an awful lot of Germans to do what they did through appeals to altruism, e.g., the German "Volk."

Read Peikoff's book.

53 posted on 12/30/2003 11:08:26 AM PST by sauropod (Excellence in Shameless Self-Promotion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: esopman; hellinahandcart; Lil'freeper; NYC GOP Chick
"Sauropod is correct."

"He always is", he sez humbly ;-)

54 posted on 12/30/2003 11:10:31 AM PST by sauropod (Excellence in Shameless Self-Promotion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dutchgirl
The books of CS Lewis alone account for a huge chunk of the publishing industry

Oh, please.

Yes, they are evergreens, and still sell, but a "huge chunk"? You either are unfamiliar with the publishing industry or are terminally optimistic.

55 posted on 12/30/2003 11:11:10 AM PST by Pahuanui (When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
Even a cursory examination of history will reveal a pivotal fact; namely, that "paradigm shifts" – massive changes of gestalt thinking NEVER originate from WITHIN the old paradigm.

So this guy is a new ager then? This is also their thinking. Somehow I don't trust his views of Christianity if this is his belief. (Among other reasons)

56 posted on 12/30/2003 11:13:15 AM PST by ladyinred (God Bless our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G. Stolyarov II
>>>>>>We are a slave rebellion, friends: an "Underground railroad" of the Human Spirit.


In the absence of God, is the Human Spirit (capitalized out of respect for it's apotheosis, I assume) something that I would find in the AD&D Monster Manual?

I understand why Objectivists find some elements of modern religion as objectionable as a Tammy Faye Bakkar makeover, but I'm not sure how they can disbelieve in God and still posit a spiritual world. Are there any Objectivists that believe quartz crystals cure herpes?

Who is John Galt, and what was he smoking when he wrote this article?
57 posted on 12/30/2003 11:16:00 AM PST by .cnI redruM (Dean People Suck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustPlainJoe
I have read all Ayn Rand's philosophic treatises, as well as, her novels, and, for the most part, consider myself an objectvist, although more of an Aristotleian. However, I try to refrain from running around epousing such except on a ripe occasion as this. As well, I believe in God, although God is not a single entity, a benevolent being, and as such, or contrary to, the commonly accepted belief that God created Man in His own image, I must believe Man created God in his own image.
58 posted on 12/30/2003 11:17:46 AM PST by Dog Anchor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #59 Removed by Moderator

To: Pahuanui
I understand that CS Lewis Books, including Narnia sell over 2 million copies annually...
60 posted on 12/30/2003 11:21:47 AM PST by Dutchgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-284 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson