Posted on 12/29/2001 12:09:43 AM PST by Starmaker
While Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and essays on politics, culture and philosophy, was a great advocate of free market capitalism and a significant anti-communist, she also made mistakes in her thinking which are presently being slavishly parroted by her devout coterie of followers at the Ayn Rand Institute. While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle. This is reflected today in her followers, who call themselves Objectivists, and who tend to spout her dogma and mimic her mannerisms in a fashion that is at times positive and at times unbecoming.
A case in point is the recent article "Why Christmas Should be More Commercial" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff who referrers to himself as the foremost authority on Objectivism and is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. While Peikoff revels in the commercial aspects of Christmas, he sneers at "assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously." I would beg to differ. Most of us, to varying degrees, enjoy the commercial aspect of Christmas and gift giving and see no contradiction between this and the religious aspect. In this season this year, which comes on the tail of hijackers crashing planes into buildings, thousands of grieving families, friends, and a grieving nation, and anthrax in the mail, thinking about G-d, and loving thy neighbor contributes greatly to a more significant sense of meaning and purpose in life, certainly more so than a mere commercial transaction. I don´t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism, I think people do take these things very seriously.
The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution which is that man somehow evolved from the primordial ooze. They dismiss as a superstition the more rational idea, in my opinion, that the creation of life, with all of its incredible facets, had to involve a supernatural and divine aspect. They reject the theory of creation not because it is irrational but because the Atheist Ayn Rand rejected it. As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational while at the same time providing a varied and nuance sense of life, certainly more so than the morally neutral idea that man somehow miraculously evolved out of the mud.
In his Christmas article, Peikoff asserts "America´s tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent." Unless I´m missing something, America´s "intellectual leaders" haven´t insisted on religion any time recently but rather an atheistic, morally neutral, scientific socialist culture that claims to be based on "reason." As far as American religion being an advocate of "self sacrifice," this is just nonsense. Self-sacrifice is a policy of the abovementioned intellectual leaders who have no intention of sacrificing anything themselves, only the fruit of the labor of others. Religion tends to advocate voluntary tithing for the needy and private charities.
Peikoff wants to "take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egotistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration." His utopian idea of happiness seems to be a world where man is not fettered by such obstacles as guilt or worry about anything but the here and now. Much of the article venerates earth-worshipping paganism, which is where many Atheists, hungering for meaning and purpose, seem to end up. Ayn Rand and the Objectivists made great contributions to capitalism, freedom and individual rights but, unfortunately, that contribution is somewhat eclipsed by a darker side. Perhaps Rand was more influenced by her own Stalinist high school and College education than she realized. Either way, it´s a shame that such glaring mistakes threaten to discredit such important work.
The probability is low. Even so, it is high enough that it did happen to happen this way in 5 billion years. Modern information Scientists have shown who it was done. Of course, Information Science is not mentioned in the Bible so it can not really exist. Can it?
Once again, the Quasi-Intellectual trying to control human emotions. Humbug and Pitooi.
Bingo. Every physical thing has an origin, seeing that something cannot just make itself.
This reminds me of a story I heard once. A group of scientists in Europe, North America, and the Asian Pacific Rim got together and said that we did not need God anymore. They drew up their resolution and they took it to their respective governments for approval.
Their stated reasoning was that man could do all that God supposedly had done, including creating human life. Upon hearing this, God revealed Himself to these scientists and discussed departing from man since man didn't need Him anymore.
God said, "If you can create man as I created man, then I will leave you to yourselves."
Upon hearing this, the scientists were gleeful and knew they could finally rid the world of the evils of so-called religion forever. They took up God on His offer, and told Him to meet them outside the next day.
The following day God met with the scientists like He said He would, and the scientists had alerted the media to cover this extraordinary event.
God said, "Now, create man exactly how I created him."
The lead scientist knelt down and began to gather dirt to form the image of a man. At this point, God moved forward and said, "Stop right there. You have to get your own dirt. Leave Mine alone."
The mathematical proof of life's origins exists. Just read The Touchstone of Life
It must be tough to be God. He gets so many asinine ideas shoved into His mouth.
At any rate, the only elaboration I need is the fact that you are a self-admitted atheist, just as they were. That's it. There's nothing else to it because there needn't be anything else to it.
Stretch the timeline all you like; it's topologically incorrect.
Then where did God come from?
We don't really exist. We are just a big quantum fluctuation. :)
He says what he means, and means what he says, I could care less about his faith, that is just a disagreement we have.
Whom do you suppose is BSing me?
Your local Preist or Pastor, but especially priest. Why, I do not know, some people enjoy the ability to have strong men bow down on there knees and confess mistakes to them, only to go thank them for punishment. I do not understand this, but different strokes for different folks. As for pastors, similar to priests, their word is gospel, that kind of power is very tempting, I may even BS you to taste it.
And your final question, is stealing wrong. Yes it is. Why? Because it weakens you as a person if you steal. The act of working for an object strengthens the person who works for it. Stealing bypasses the work and therefore leaves the thief weaker. Also I would not do something to someone that I would not want them to do to me.
You seem to be very defensive. I am simply expressing my views and I do not think you are a dupe. I have always questioned my beliefs, and I have come up with this view. I do not see you as any less than me for arriving at a different view. If you insult me for my view then I simply believe that it you are not comfortable with your own beliefs and therefore can only defend them with moronic statements, not well thought out answers.
However, get your own dirt. Leave His alone!
Care to list just one example?
She's practically the poster girl of Lenin's NEP ... or any perestroika-style calculated incorporation of capitalism by a militant atheist. To wit, check out Peter Singer's arguments in his "Darwinian Left". He's more than willing to admit that Rand (and the right) had it going one where they operated within the confines of human nature -- in all its individuality at present, anyway.
She is the essence of selfishness and arbitrary (not objective) and atomistic (not universal) reality.
I'll grant you that she rings my chimes from time to time. I can see how she's ended up with so many fanatic followers on this forum, even.
I still think the true measure of any man or woman will be their regard for human life. She fails the test miserably and her absolutely irrational take on the only really important thing on the planet ... Human Life ... is a fatal flaw that collapses like a house of cards her soulless materialism regardless how compelling -- and true, no doubt -- are her basic arguments re: force and selfishness.
Regardless all her sound and fury where communism was concerned (how chic was that, by the way, in her day?) ... her staunch atheist materialism is the Achilles heel by which she's just a gateway drug to an allegedly just but essentially selfish and purely material world.
Regards, AnnaZ ... I trust you and the family will have a splendid and successful New Year with every possible joy and blessing.
I am deliberately withholding my opinion because I am still waiting for a few more answers. I will be computer challenged for the next few days, so I wish you and all a Happy New Year, and will revisit this thread January 2nd.
What is information science? Is that like information theory?
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.