"Religion vs. America" by Leonard Peikoff

[@everyman66]

Brilliant. Needed now more than ever.

[@aristocratofgreed8740]

Absolutely fantastic lecture.

[@mauricioszwerdszarf1455]

If you are religious, you cannot be Objectivist!

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Sadly there’s some people that think you can, even though Ayn Rand made it 100% clear that there is no room for God or Christianity in objectivism.

[@dalewier9735]

Sadly, what the non religious can't understand is they can't be objective or think in line with Objectivism. Everyone, EVERYONE, has preconceived and bias views. These views are based on a moral code of some kind. The difference is mine are written down in a compiled group of commandments and imperatives.

[@science212]

Reason and atheism- that is Objectivism. Not a false word, like god.

[@CRJines]

Good stuff!

[@nowaout8014]

as an objectivist my relation with spirit is an individual one yet i also know how any idea can be twisted do unto others as u want to be treated is a pretty objectivist concept in my opinion

[@RogerFusselman]

Ayn Rand talked about "Do unto others..." etc. somewhere in either her letters or journals. The famous expeessio is a VERY incomplete rule at the very least. It would justify mutual abuse or codependency, would it not? It all depends on how you should be treated in the first place, which is NOT explained in the formulation. Another problem is its referral fo personal emotion as to the standard of what is right. If you FEEL you deserve X, therefore others deserve X. That's not good, and it opens up the potential for greater arbitrary values and behavior. The right approach is the Objectivist one of laying preconditions for why need ethics, fix a standard for moral thinking about values, and spell out the virtues from there.

[@operaguy1]

1:19:40 "Endowed by their creator ..." So unfortunate, the credit to God and the omission of 'property.' One month prior, Geoge Mason wrote the opposite in the VA Declaration, as follows ... "That all Men are created equally free & independent, & have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." If only jef.frank.adams had copy/pasted.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@bradbecker8982]

Primacy of consciousness refers to when individuals attempt to deny objective reality in favor of wishes. The prioritization of consciousness over existence is often religion, whim worship and emotionalism etc.

[@bradbecker8982]

@@bretnetherton9273 “awareness” as an abstract concept cannot be aware of anything. Only a biological entity with volition, reason and perception can be aware of the other objects and entities within existence. Awareness is awareness of a thing. An entity must objectively exist otherwise the real existence of death will overcome any entity. To objectively exist means to interface with a real existence that is absolute, whether we are capable of achieving awareness of it, or not. Ayn Rand needs studied more.

[@bradbecker8982]

@@bretnetherton9273 a God cannot create existence from non existence.. otherwise who created that God? I think the universe never began and will never end.

[@bradbecker8982]

@@bretnetherton9273 we don’t share the same awareness

[@bradbecker8982]

@@bretnetherton9273 I am me and you are you. We are both humans but we have different minds. We cannot learn or think for one another. Religion sure is scary, it makes otherwise intelligent people believe that they aren’t individuals, that instead they’re part of a collective dream that is orchestrated by some creator that was never created. Blows my mind.. but I can see why the stories have lasted thousands of years

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

ARI supported David Brat against Eric Cantor, both of whom were said to be influenced by ATLAS SHRUGGED. The difference being that Brat was overtly religious.; so anxious was ARI to "stick it to the Establishment". Cinsider this when evaluating Reagan vs Carter. Carter was actually a preaching church Elder, which, If you read ERGO in 1977, you would have known since I submitted a news item from the PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, about Carter preaching about the good things about death to ERGO and it was printed. To me, that put Carter higher on the religion scale than Reagan. Also, who said or wrote "Soren Kierkegaaard was better than the Existentialists, he was a religious man" In 1969 or 70, I was probably the only novice Objectivist that did not do a double-take on seeing that Would you say that The 1970's/80's Democratic party was a product of the Intelligentsia? Start the Wayback Machine Sharian. Destination; early 1958. I am 12 years old, listineing to a report, either on the radio or on television not looking at the screen. Subject "the post-Existentialist Intelligentsia": "Intellectuals are trading Esistentialism for Nihilism" because "Existentialism is not providing 'answers'". i go off to my dictionary to look up Nihilism. The images that come to mind are of a great. cloud-lighting searchlight or an airport beacon. The light from the beacon is slowely consumed by a black fog. The light from the searchlight just gradually weakens as though something were changing its very nature. In 1959 AR said "The intellectuals are trying to put themselves out of business" In one of my notes on Facebook, "The 'Secular' Progressives", I wrote. The religious right is superior to the Progressives. To hold to the absolute existience of God is much closer to 'Existence exists'" [than the Nihilist intelligentsia]" That all changed when the leaders of the Religious Right; Fallwell Jr. Robertson and Graham Jr. gave their support to the wholesale Commandment violator [adultery on a massive scale, covetousness and bearing false witness at interstellar levels]; Donald Trump; who embodies the anti-concept "crony capitalism" and who is in fact, even during the GOP primaries, an overt Leftist, of which I wrote. that this constitutes proof that there is no God or there would have been a mass die-off of the the Evenagelical Right on 9 Nov. '16 "If I read my Ananias and Sapphira correctly" and "Apparently God IS mocked; not by his enemies, but by the homies and fanboys" and "This REEKS of Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees" Actually, membership in the Moral Majority did not require 100% agreement with Falwell's positions, only holding to the necessity of a moral view of life and agreement with many of the statements. In fact, Objectivists would be in agreement with most of the statements in the manifesto with only two or three exceptions. and Jerry bragged that the membership included atheists, the truth of which I can attest to . And, in 1980, espeically with inflation running at 15+%, interest rates at 18+% and the burning and bombing of US embassies becoming a cottage industry, how could one NOT vote for the only person who was saying "government IS the problem"? Given all that I knew, Reagan was a clear choie. Especially after Rand had supported Nixon who she said was a "power luster" over the somewhat principled McGovern. This being after the publication of "The Establishing of an Establishment" that Establishment being the same Establishment which, to stick it to, the ARI would support the overtly religious David Brait over the secular Eric Cantor though both were admittedly influenced by ATLAS SHRUGGED as described in the first paragraph The major choice has never been religion vs Objectivism but religions vs Nihilsm Now it's the real Left vs the Leftist faking Right with the aid of the Religious Right. A blue tsunami is the least the Republicans derverve. Something about, by nominationg and electing a Leftist Nihilist, the brother asked for it (I can just see the ghost of Art Baker voting Democrat, holding in the other hand, a jar of Skippy peanut butter)

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

There is an "on the other hand", which demonstrates the MIXED nature of religion. Would anyone gainsay the value that Rand held Aquinas in? If you can get to my Facebook page and read "Religion and the Left" in my Notes, you understand how John Kasich is a "Christian Welfare Statist" and essentially a Conservative This illustrates something about the Declaration of Independence. It differentiates between "Nature" and "Nature's God" and observe which comes first in any statement that uses both, almost as if "Nature's God" is an afterthought. Contrary to how the Conservatives interpret it, it could also be interpreted as one of the early documents that is separating religion and politics The way that one could be trapped is shown by the following. Ron Pisuro, former ERGO staff member and presumably an Objectivist said "It is better to say that 'rights come from God' than to say that 'Man has no rights'. It is better to say that 'God created man's soul' than to say 'man has no soul'". The first is the exact statement that Rand specified as wrong and evil. There are problems with this. Let us imagine that I am a leftist and upon hearing this I say "Mr. Pisuro, do you believe in God?" If he says "yes" than he is no Objectivist and loses credibility as such. If he says "No" What does THAT mean about his take on rights and a soul? It means that they are lies. It is better, but still wrong, to say that "Man has no rights" and "Man has no soul [he certainly does not have one in the way that religion posits]" because, it still leaves one free to discover that man does have rights and a soul at some future date than to tie tham to what one believes is false and thus make a lie; i.e. a deliberate,known falsehood, of them, thus ruling out any future discoveries of them, at least until such time as they can be de-coupled from the major falsehood, which may be tomorrow, the next millennium, an age from now -- or never

[@mrfezzywig]

He’s not talking about the internal reform of a person motivated by the virtue of Christ. But rather the blind following and compliance with religious leaders. Blind compliance can only come by public deceit and is the opposite of following Christ

[@Triple_J.1]

Jesus said "pick up your cross and follow me" And just where did he take it? And what did he do with it? His highest moral standard is self-righteous suicide. And God the fathers standard of righteousness is pre-ordained complete and total destruction of innocent children. Would you like a dozen scriptural examples?

[@mannyjeanpierre4062]

doesnt the bible preach about following christ based off blind faith. he didnt mince his words.

[@mrfezzywig]

@@mannyjeanpierre4062 no

[@science212]

The concept of god is an evil term.

[@dalewier9735]

...To the unsure, all things are unpure.

[@science212]

Reality is objective. Religious concepts are false and anti ethics. @@dalewier9735

[@science212]

Stockman is an irrational person.

[@robertwiegman1]

I agree that religion is anti the pursuit of happiness but what I've learned is that religion has NOTHING to do with the Bible. Actually the very term refers in Latin signifies man made jargon that has does not correspond to the Bible. What I'm saying is religion and simple faith in God are NOT the same thing. That's jyst a fact.

[@CptChandler]

Robert Wiegman are you suggesting that it’s possibly to believe everything in the Bible without faith?

[@robertwiegman1]

Chandler no, what I'm saying is that in the Bible-believing camp (like me), and I was an atheist for a while, there's a radical difference between "religion" and beliefs that emanate from actually what's in the Bible is all I'm saying, Beliefs based on the Bible nothing bad comes from them; beliefs not derived from the Bible like Catholicism or Judeaism, that's called religion. Just trying to explain the difference.

[@Triple_J.1]

@Civilisation du Futur "the Lord said to Moses... "Parents stone their children to death for disobedience" ... without any objective standard of what constitutes disobedience to the parents and no standard the parents demands must fall within...."Thus sayeth the Lord".

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@CptChandler I mean you need faith to believe in anything I need to say to not believe in something as well.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@coreyflorez9466 What makes you think that faith is a belief without evidence? Unfortunately this is simply an atheist slogan and a meme and nothing more. And it’s also in equivocation fallacy faith is not simply just a belief without evidence, Faith is just trust and confidence in something or someone it arrives in the Greek word Pitits which simply just means to put trust and confidence in something or someone that is how it was used widely throughout the ancient world. Have you read how the term has been used by Aristotle, socrates, Archimedes, plato, Heraclitus, Diodorus, Xenophon, or Thucydides?

[@science212]

Oral Roberts was a liar.

[@dalewier9735]

And so are you, he just admitted that he was.

[@science212]

I told the rational truth. Religious, ecologists and socialists are liars. @@dalewier9735