WWJGD?

I thought you might enjoy Thomas Paine's insight on this subject: "As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word 'revelation.' Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him." --The Age of Reason Pt. 1 Chap. 2 (Link to above siting) Paine was so cool.

Thanks for the replies, While it is true that stars use up hydrogen, there must be some sort of reclycling system in the Universe to convert heavier elements into smaller ones. I was reading on Space.com (I can't find the article but I'll post it if I run across it again) that "black holes" may not last forever. Some scientists think that they may leak material over time. I would have to look more into this. The main point though is that since Existence Exists, finding out how the Universe recycles stuff would require scientific investigation. What this article does is try to side step the task of investigation and say, "Well, we don't know now, so God probably did it" (Interesting link poohat)

I ran across this web site today A Practical Man's Proof of God - Does God Exist? I am concerned here only with his opening argument, entitled "THE BEGINNING", since the rest of his essay rests on its premises. Here he implies that since the objects in the Universe consume fuel, i.e, the sun converts hydrogen into helium (which)=energy; the fuel (hydrogen) should have been used up long ago if the Universe is eternal. He is saying that the Universe is a closed system. I seem to be having trouble addressing this statement. I think that my trouble lies in the fact that Closed and Open systems are not something I'm very familiar with. Does anyone here know what they are exactly? (No laughs please, I have come to realize in adulthood that my State sponsored education is lacking, and I am taking the proper steps needed to correct it.)

kgvl, I agree that some qualify as ethical values. My point is that the 10 Commandments could not be the starting point for a Government which respects rights. The Founding Fathers were aware of the content of the 10 Commandments, but being men of reason, I can not imagine Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and others answering the question, "Is murder wrong" by saying, "Yes, because it's in the ten commandments." I can't quote them offhand on that one. I would definatly like to look into their comments on murder, theft, etc. to find their rational justification of why its wrong, and I have a hunch from what I have read by them, that I would be pleased with such an inquiry.

kgvl, Atlas Shrugged Movie Underway I think that an Atlas Shrugged movie would have a tremendous impact, even if the movie were not all that great. People would know it was based on a novel and probably go out and read the book. Look at such recent sales as Tolkien's work. I wish I had a nickel for every time some one has said to me in the last 2 or 3 years, "Lord of the Rings was a great film but nothing compared to the books, you gotta read the books!" I think the same thing would happen to Atlas Shrugged. Plus, with Lord of the Rings, interest in Tolkein's other works increased as well. The Hobbit even returned to the best sellers list and is only recently falling back down, along with The Simerillion (also by Tolkein) It would not supprise me to see Atlas Shrugged along with the Fountainhead both return to the best sellers list once the movie goes to theatre. Along with The Virtue of Selfishness in the non-fiction. Very, very exciting to think about the possibilities.

NEITHER. I can not find a single attribute of the "Judeo-Christian" ethical system which supports the idea of RIGHTS, i.e the right of man to exist for his own sake. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, to varing degrees, which I gather from my own reading of their writings to mean basically, "God exists, but you should try to work your own problems out as best you can, by THINKING." (My paraphrasing) Holding this as a basic premise, they then formulated a system which allowed men to do just that.

This article best handles this one. The Ten Commandments vs. America I would not say that they laid the base work for Objectivism, but I would definitly say that had they not discovered man's relationship to REASON, and the only system which allows reason to flourish, Objectivism would not have been discovered. I believe, though I can't quote, Rand mentioned that she could not have discovered her philosophy if the Industrial Revolution had not occured, which was a by-product of man's ability to act according to his own judgment. (I could not imagine how an Industrial Revolution even could occur under any type of "Christian" gov't, considering the Dark Ages.)

I agree with matt, Christian "influence" is certainly not enough to call this a Christian nation. This nation was founded on a single principle. Man's "unalienable right" to exist for his own sake. Not a single verse of the Bible defines the concept of RIGHTS. And it certainly doesn't hint at anyone being a "rational animal" (Franklin's words) capable of using his own judgment to persue his own best interest. I think Thomas Paine defines best the main influence of the Founding Fathers. "The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."--Thomas Paine

President Bush isn't helping matters. Ash, When you said this I was reminded of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative" to provide federal funds to religious charities. I have not had the chance to find out more about this. Was it even questioned by the Supreme Court? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE 1. Providing federal funds to religious organizations is clearly an "establishment of religion." So what do we do now?

Since encountering Objectivism, I developed a deep interest in the personal philosophies and lives of our Founding Fathers. I have started a collection of such works as The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, The Federalist Papers, Notes on Virginia by Thomas Jefferson, etc. What has really suprised me is that many of these men were not Christians. Since I can remember, I have heard that old bromide, "This nation was founded on Christianity, by golly!" I can't figure out where this myth originated. The Founding Fathers were quite clear as to their position on Religion. John Adams even said in the Treaty of Tripoli that "this nation is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." So why am I still encountering people who say that it was founded on Christianity? When I ask them why they think this I rarely get anything coherent. Anyone else still running into this?

Hello everyone, After spending many hours a week on this forum and getting the chance to read tons of great discussions, I finally registered. My name, WWJGD?, is kind of an inside joke with my wife. We live in the Bible Belt and a popular thing here on t-shirts,etc. is WWJD (what would Jesus do?) So I joke with her when I see it and say "What would John Galt do?" Which is much better in my opinion. I consider myself a student of Objectivism with a lot to learn and look forward to future discussions. I've already learned some interesting things. I've read Ayn Rand's fictional work over the past couple of years and am very excited about the practical applications of Objectivism to my personal life. I am about to start Study Methods & Motivations by Edwin A. Locke before tackling some of the other books. Thanks