Ayn Rand And Her Legacy Of Idiotic Objectivists

Toogood Reports ^ | December 30, 2001 | Charles A. Morse

[GSWarrior]

I hate Harold Molt!!!

[scottiewottie]

Since I have already sold my soul to Satan so I could play better (=louder!+faster!) guitar, how much do you think I could get if I returned Jesus's gift unopened to the Store....

Existential Objectivism asks, If you haven't opened the gift how do you know that it is there? If you open it and see no gift, does that mean that it is not there?

Too bad about asking satan to play the guitar faster, what we need is better drummers and keyboard players. But knowing satan, he probably didn't want you to know that! (smile)

[Physicist]

From the King James Version (Genesis):

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[BibChr]

Dang. Looks like an interesting topic, but I just can't take seriously anything that uses "G-d," either in the common way as a blasphemy, or in the "look-at-me-look-at-me-I'm-holier-than-GOD!" pseudo-pious way.

And I guess the author denies the truth of Jesus' deity, since he says "Christmas" and not "Chr-stmas." Right?

Silly practice.

Dan
What Is Biblical Christianity?

[BluesDuke]

...Peikoff's not responsible.

Isn't it sad, to see Objectivism degenerating into militant atheism, under his influence?

It has not been "degenerating" into militant atheism, it was born in militant atheism (I mean, please - when introduced to William F. Buckley, Jr. at a gathering in the 1950s, Rand's very first words to him were, "You ahrr too intelligent to beleef in Gott"); Peikoff has been, merely, the maximum champion, since the rift between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. Rand should probably have kept herself confined to defending the free market and attacking the omnipotent State; had she let it go at that, she would likely be remembered as the vibrant thinker she merely thought she would be remembered as, rather than a caricature of scholarly rigor who rested somewhere between a crank and an intellectual tyrant.

[scottiewottie]

Your trust in a linear, scientific approach to Genesis chapter one and the consequential application of known scientific postulates and theories is still, at best, problematic. You may observe logical contradiction, but that does not necessarily make it so. You should know that logic requires precise and persistent testing of observation.

[Askel5]

I reject creation, as outlined in the Bible,

Well now that's rich coming from one who "believes" in the Noosphere.

It's a damn pity the Protest-ants had to so completely undercut the Bible they worshipped by insisting every word was to be taken literally ... (per one's own Spirit-infused powers of interpretation, that is).

Until you can "scientifically disprove" the Magisterium's take, I think you should be more specific that you speak of creation as outlined by Bibliolators.

[Askel5]

Cheers!

At heart, Rand's an emotional wreck ... like all atheists (militant or otherwise) masquerading as Objectivists.

Listening to her screech and spew in response to Humanae Vitae ought to forever disabuse anyone of the notion she's a thinker.

Besides, given the fact the measure of ANY man can be taken first and last by his regard for human life, clearly Rand's practically a gateway drug to the mindset that confuses capitalism with freedom and cheers the so-called "economic re-form and opportunity" afforded by the merger of militant atheist totalitarians and soulless, central planner capitalists.

I suspect this is one reason she's not taught in schools. Not only could she not hold up under serious intellectual scrutiny, she becomes a secret love ... a personal discovery ... the forbidden fruit of both liberal and "conservative" alike as they march lockstep to Middle wherein both Marx and the "western materialists" get to design their utopias from the top-down in purely material terms.

Big Sister is Watching You (Whittaker Chambers)

Putin Advisor EXTOLS Ayn Rand

[Psycho_Bunny]

The Randian brand of 'Objectivism' is nothing other than Capitalistic Anarchy. Her books made it clear.

I used to get the Rand newsletter...personally, I found the Randians pretty freakish and was please when they stopped sending it to me.

I do, however, consider 'We the Living' one of the 10 great books.

[Gurn]

Nice blasphemy. You won't need a coat where you're going, pal.

What intrigues me about athiests, particularly those of the intellectual stripe is this: If something is beyond their ability to comprehend or explain, it must not exist. Man -- and man's mind -- is the absolute end-all and be-all.

How incredibly vain, arrogant and short-sighted.

[BluesDuke]

Chambers had her pegged about right. What distresses is that Rand's profile has been and yet remains high enough that those either too lazy to inquire otherwise, or too eager to bash the target no matter what, presume that she and she alone is the alpha and omega of the libertarian position, ignorant by either default or design of the point that libertarianism neither began nor ended with Rand and her band...

[Miss Antiwar]

FYI!

[Rate_Determining_Step]

What intrigues me about athiests, particularly those of the intellectual stripe is this: If something is beyond their ability to comprehend or explain, it must not exist. Man -- and man's mind -- is the absolute end-all and be-all. How incredibly vain, arrogant and short-sighted.

I always thought it was you guys were the feeble minded. You can't get a grip on the fact that we don't know the origins of the universe. You can't deal with the fact when you die, you're essentially bug food. You don't know why the sky is blue - oops wait, we figured out that one.

The world is complicated and we're finding out very complicated. We don't know all the answers. Some don't want to know the answers.

I can live with the fact that I don't know all the answers. I've always thought that many religious people were religious because it offered a ready-made answers for questions that are clearly not going to show up on Nova next week.

That things exist beyond my comprehension is a-ok with me. I'll cope somehow. What I won't do is invent some (get this) omnipitent being and follow His word as generated by comittee over the course of a couple of hundred years, yada yada.

Back to your original item: I don't believe in mysticism - be they Tarot Cards or whatever... I could just as easily say, prove to me Tarot cards don't work. You just don't believe! You're arrogant. I view religion exactly as I view Miss Cleo.

Suchiro
No, it ain't cause I'm "Japanese". That's only my screen name. I'm just a run-of-the-mill white dude, born and raised in America.

[The Green Goblin]

The Randian brand of 'Objectivism' is nothing other than Capitalistic Anarchy. Her books made it clear.

Her books made it clear? Where did Rand ever write that government should be totally eliminated?

[Physicist]

Well now that's rich coming from one who "believes" in the Noosphere.

The comparison eludes me; can you elaborate?

[Roscoe]

Good links.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Dude, I'm not playing that game with you. I respect her writings immensely. I've read all of her books, a couple of them twice.

Her beliefs are quite clear.