TravellingFool

Right, it was only a matter of time, I'm need help again. With regards to the stolen concept fallacy, how does atheism work? Is it possible to say that God/some form of higher being does not exist without inadvertantly implying his/its existence? This may seem a fairly fundamental question but I am having a great deal of trouble at the moment actually getting my hands on Rand's texts and therefore am working solely with material I am able to find on the net and although there is plenty, it seems primarily for those with prior knowledge of the ideas of Objectivism and now I'm confused. Anyone who can help, please do. Ta ta, TF

Thanks for that. I'll probably post something else here soon but the more I read, the more this makes sense. Although I've never before equated logic with red sports cars with blue 80s pinstripes. Ta ta The TravellingFool

Having only really started reading about Objectivism in itself about two months ago, I still have a lot to figure out and understand. I found the following quote in an online guide to Objectivism... I was wondering if someone who understands this could explain the idea of as it seemed to me that it would make more sense if the sentence read "B can neither be A nor not-A", although this is probably due to lack of insight on my part. Thanks The TravellingFool