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

Skip to comments.

The Idiotic Objectivists
Chuckmorse.com ^ | Dec. 27, 2001 | Chuck Morse

Posted on 12/27/2001 2:31:24 PM PST by Chuckmorse

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last
To: innocentbystander
The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution...

I don't know any Objectivists, but I know that Ayn Rand did NOT agree with the popular evolutionary theories of her time. Either Objectivists disagree with Rand on this issue and the author is an ignoramous, or the Objectivists agree with Rand on this issue in which case the author is an ignoramous.

41 posted on 12/27/2001 4:31:30 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Most creationists revere the scientific method.

Except that they turn Ockham's razor into Ockham's plate of spaghetti.

42 posted on 12/27/2001 4:33:43 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
No confusion at play. Their mutual grandiosity aside, I realize that the mad professor of classical philology at Basel, who left us volumes of his tantrums as well, had a larger mustache than Ayn Rand's.
43 posted on 12/27/2001 4:33:54 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Of course the earth isn't at the center of the universe. I am.

You need to get your facts straight buddy. We can't both be the center of the universe.

44 posted on 12/27/2001 4:35:50 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Shallow.
45 posted on 12/27/2001 4:36:48 PM PST by LiberationIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
You seem to have confused Rand with Neitzsche.

Rand hated Neitzsche (eventually). Objectivists hate Libertarians. Maybe Democrats really do hate Communists.

46 posted on 12/27/2001 4:40:09 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: CWRWinger
IMO, the self-assertiveness of today's feminazis had some of its origin in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand hated feminists too.

Come to think of it, what did Rand NOT hate? Oh I know...Victor Hugo. Weird.

48 posted on 12/27/2001 4:43:25 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
Has the universe always existed? It seems to me that if you accept the existance of anything, then you've got to accept that something not-rationally-explainable happened to bring stuff into existance -- some sort of uncaused first cause. Doesn't the mere fact that things exist pose an insurmountable logical hurdle to you guys who don't believe in God?

I happen to be a theist, but reject the "uncaused cause" argument, in all its forms, for the simple reason that existense cannot have a beginning. But, what you mean by "existense" is the present material universe, and that is a very important distinction. (For example, if existense has a beginning, then so does God, if God exists.)

I also do not believe God created the material univers ex-nihilo, that is, from nothing. (Is God nothing? Before the universe, did He exist nowhere? Absurd, of course.) The Bible does not teach this, actually, only theologians.

These are one theist's answers, but an atheist might be comfortable with them as well. You may have noticed that God made this universe in such a way that to those who do not think to deeply, it seems to be totally self-contained and capable of explaining everything. There is a reason for this.

Hank

49 posted on 12/27/2001 4:44:11 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Objectivism USA
What is extreme atheism, you are either an atheist or not.

Nonsense. In fact, I'm a little atheistic, partially Muslim, a tad agnostic, four-tenths Lutheran, and am pretty sure that Shirley McClain is god. I'm also a hair pregnant despite being mostly male and 75% alive.

50 posted on 12/27/2001 4:48:27 PM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Reading Peikoff I don’t find him sneering at Christian’s but merely acknowledging reality. The commercial part of Christmas has eclipsed the religious celebration as demonstrated by where most Americans spend their time, money and energy. Compare the amount of ink used or thought put into Christmas trees, light displays, shopping for presents and all of the other secular parts of Christmas; as opposed to nativity scenes, religious services and thoughts about the birth of Christ.

Extreme atheism: extreme is an adjective that adds nothing to atheism. You are either an atheist or not just as you are either a theist or not; you can’t be any more or any less of a theist or an atheist.

Claiming Creation theory is more rational than evolution theory is wrong. While it is true that evolution as a complete theory is lacking in certain areas, it still is a simpler and therefore more likely explanation of the origin of the universe. If God exits he would have to be greater and more complex than that which he created. Theists believe that God somehow came into existence, which would be even less likely than that a less complex Universe happened on its own. You can’t arrive at a belief in God through a rational process; it requires faith.

I would have to agree with you about many of our current Socialist intellectual leaders desiring the sacrifice of others. But there are also Pastors that profess Christ while demanding sacrifice on the part of their congregation; sacrifice that in reality ends up benefiting primarily the church leaders.

To call the vision utopian is mistaken. Utopian requires a belief in the perfectibility of mankind. Ayn Rand laid out an idealized vision of man’s potential but I find no evidence that she expected many would live up to it. Until all men are perfect you can never create utopia and to try will always result in catastrophe. The best we can do is try to move things in a better direction.

To claim that an accurate historical description of the true origin of the Christmas holiday some how venerates paganism is wrong. If any one venerates paganism it is those that worship the holiday as a historical reality.

To end with a parting cheap shot about Ayn Rand being influenced by a socialist upbringing is beneath you. I enjoyed your little essay but I am sure with a little time you could have improved the title.

51 posted on 12/15/1990 1:41:42 AM PST by Objectivism USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beavus
Nonsense. In fact, I'm a little atheistic, partially Muslim, a tad agnostic, four-tenths Lutheran, and am pretty sure that Shirley McClain is god. I'm also a hair pregnant despite being mostly male and 75% alive.

LOL

52 posted on 12/15/1990 1:41:44 AM PST by Objectivism USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Because the Universe is not flat or sphereical and does not have a center.
53 posted on 12/15/1990 1:42:08 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
I also do not believe God created the material univers ex-nihilo, that is, from nothing. (Is God nothing? Before the universe, did He exist nowhere? Absurd, of course.) The Bible does not teach this, actually, only theologians

I enjoy reading your posts and the insights you offer to discussions. However I respectfully disagree with the above. The Bible teaches God is from everlasting to everlasting; 1 colossians talks about the pre-existant Christ existing before time began. Of course I do not pretend to comprehend existence outside of the 4 dimensions I experience, nevertheless I am open to the possibility that Diety can.

In my opinion what we experience in this reality is not near as "real" as we think. Everthing is quantized. Eternity, the place were the Bible says God inhabits maybe more real than we can possibly imagine. Maybe I've gone off the deep end, it is late where I'm from. cheers

54 posted on 12/15/1990 1:42:24 AM PST by week 71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Got it all figured out, do you?

I doubt that you know a smarter, wiser entity than the one between your ears. Just wait until you get a chance to tutor God.

55 posted on 12/15/1990 1:42:29 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief;proud2brc
I also do not believe God created the material univers ex-nihilo, that is, from nothing. (Is God nothing? Before the universe, did He exist nowhere? Absurd, of course.) The Bible does not teach this, actually, only theologians.

Proud2brc, to this, how would you respond?

56 posted on 12/15/1990 1:42:47 AM PST by Dr. Good Will Hunting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
Good article, but you forgot to mention where to find the Ayatollah Peikoff's fatwah. I found it at Enter Stage Right. The editor "Gordon Gekko" sometimes posts articles here, but unaccountably leaves the more controversial ones at home when he comes.

The mad Mullah of Objectivism writes: "Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate--and really, underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate." There's some pedantry involved in telling people what life is or requires, but I'll run the risk and say life is more complex than that.

There have been some pretty rough patches and terrible times in history. Peikoffism would have been scant consolation in the dark ages of history. Even today, it looks more like a fair weather philosophy rather than anything that can sustain people in tough situations. And discarding Christ from Christmas leaves something trivial and forgettable.

So is it to be ever more material goods, ever more materialism and prosperity? Maybe that's not the worst fate, but it does obscure things that can be more important in life. It may be that capitalism, individualism and practical materialism are our fate, but in themselves, they don't always provide the resources to get through the rough patches in the lives of nations or individuals.

57 posted on 12/29/2001 12:06:58 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckmorse
As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational

An "admirer of reason" finds an obviously circular theory (what created the creator?) to be "much more rational"?

58 posted on 12/29/2001 12:07:04 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
The proposal that spiders could have acquired food some other way until web-weaving was evolved ignores that fact that web-weaving is an extremely complex process that must have come into existense, when it did, complete.

This is a particularly weak example of the "irreducable complexity" argument. Obviously, a disorganized mess of a web (of the sort spun by many spider species, actually), or even single strands (of the sort used by some hunting spider species) will catch insects -- perhaps a bit less efficiently than a flat orb web, but well enough.

59 posted on 12/29/2001 12:07:06 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 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