Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Brandon

Galt's Gulch and the Producer Revolution

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As I was looking at that website one question kept occuring to me: why would anyone bother to make a forum about a philosophy they don't know and name it based on a novel they never read...

Edited by Myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I was looking at that website one question kept occuring to me: why would anyone bother to make a forum about a philosophy they don't know and name it based on a novel they never read...

Some of them have read it (not many of them, it seems) but what's crazier is they seem to have ALL read the Book of Mormon. :pimp:

And they were HIGHLY offended by my posts about atheism. I ignited a full-scale war. The forum saw more activity in the last week than in the previous several months combined. All to attack a little ol' Objectivist atheism... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of them have read it (not many of them, it seems) but what's crazier is they seem to have ALL read the Book of Mormon. :pimp:

And they were HIGHLY offended by my posts about atheism. I ignited a full-scale war. The forum saw more activity in the last week than in the previous several months combined. All to attack a little ol' Objectivist atheism... :P

Are you "cropperb"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a good laugh. Thank you.

Quote taken from the topic: Law of Attraction:

My personal understanding of this law, as shown in the film, is that the human mind has the ability to attract and create that which it thinks. Therefore, it has less to do with being for or against something you think about, merely the thought it self attracts the substance of the thought directly to the thinker, causing his physical world to morph into what he sees in his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of them have read it (not many of them, it seems) but what's crazier is they seem to have ALL read the Book of Mormon. :huh:

And they were HIGHLY offended by my posts about atheism. I ignited a full-scale war. The forum saw more activity in the last week than in the previous several months combined. All to attack a little ol' Objectivist atheism... :P

cropperb, that's ME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it is funny, I think it is appalling.

:huh: Kinda like laughing at a bad car wreck.... its in bad taste.

Don't worry, I'm moving there to open a private academy. The next generation hopefully won't be so clueless.

Did you see some of the stuff they said about evolution? Here's a reply when I posted Carl Sagan's (?) metaphor of the history of earth in 24 hours.

".........It's like taking a disorganized pile of Home Depot materials and leaving them there for milenia which eventually spontaneously (not instantaniously) created an extremely ordered and well built house with indoor plumbing and forced air HVAC. But, what first happened was one nail spontaneously pounded two boards together which didn't happen until 90% of the time had passed. As soon as that happened it was just a chain reaction for the rest of the nails to pound more boards together, more material to spontaneously organize itself and create the house. This is all assuming that all of the necessary components just by chance happened to all be included in the disorganized pile. This is also discounting that all the materials in the first place had to be created by the same process in the first place. So a better analogy is that electrons, protons and neutrons were aimlessly zooming around and spontaneously combined into the elements ... no wait, where did the electrons come from? Hmm. Ok energy spontaneously created ... no wait, where did the energy come from? Hmmm. What was there first? Nothing, according to my understanding. So energy spontaneously created itself from nothing. That energy spontaneously formed into neutrons, electrons and protons. Those neutrons, electrons and protons, spontaneously organized atoms of various elements. Those atoms of various elements spontaneously organized into molecules, which spontaneously organized into the building materials that spontaneously organized into the house in question.

Using haccums razor, intelligent creation is much simpler:.........."

Got that? HACCUMS :P Not to mention all the other sick sh*t.

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And get this bit, found in the post "My 2 Cents Worth":

"In the end of Atlas Shrugged, there were a group of the Producers that came to John Galt's rescue. They did so even at the risk of their own lives, because they deemed it in their self-interest.

To me it became apparent that each of them had a love for John Galt, and he for them..

Quote:

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

That last line is a quote from the bible. :ninja:

Now I've seen it all: John Galt equated with Jesus, Rearden, Dagny, Franscisco, et al equated with the disciples of Jesus. :huh:

JESUS! :lol:

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonders will never cease. So to be a Christian *Objectivist* (that's not actually possible, yeah?) you either have to:

a) Have never read Ayn Rand

B) Not understand what she wrote about religion

c) Think she didn't really mean what she wrote about religion

So my question is, which brand of delusion is preferred by that forum?

:dough: I really don't get it. Weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, these people are Mormons who have been raised as such since birth. I think they have a very positive sense of life, but that the impulses of religion are so ingrained within them that they cherry pick the areas of Objectivism that they like in order to fit in with their religion.

Ayn Rand said that in a competition between food and poison, poison always wins, ie that compromise with evil is bad. However, are these religious people not better than 99% of most religious people? I am finding it difficult to condemn them when they seem to have such a benevolent sense of life.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand it, these people are Mormons who have been raised as such since birth. I think they have a very positive sense of life, but that the impulses of religion are so ingrained within them that they cherry pick the areas of Objectivism that they like in order to fit in with their religion.

Ayn Rand said that in a competition between food and poison, poison always wins, ie that compromise with evil is bad. However, are these religious people not better than 99% of most religious people? I am finding it difficult to condemn them when they seem to have such a benevolent sense of life.

Thoughts?

I posted the question "Is this forum predominantly Mormon," and it seems that, while most are from Utah, Mormonism is perhaps the plurality (biggest single group) but mot even so much as the majority.

I will say this about the Mormon religion: it was started by a young man named Josph Smith in about the 1830's, in upstate New York. If you're familiar with the several waves of religion that swept over America in the 1800's, you'll recognize the birth of the Mormon Church as being part of one of these religious revivals, otherwise known as the "Great Awakenings."

Mormonism is unique in being a major religion that was started in America by an American. The Mormons are very prosperous and hard-working, they do NOT resent wealth (contradictory as that may be...), and their church is sort of infused with some basic American values which crept in as it was created by the early zealots of the faith. They were harrased and driven from place to place until they finally "headed west" in a great migration in 1848 (same year that the Communist Manifesto was published, to mention a random fact). They ended in Utah when their then leader Brigham Young, upon entering the Salt Lake valley, looked out of his wagon (he was laid up sick with a fever) and said the now-famous phrase, "This is the place." And Salt Lake City has been the world capitol of Mormonism ever since.

(I was born and raised a Mormon in Utah, though I'm now a fire-breathing Objectivist, and therefore atheist.)

As for the Q is all this good or bad, food comprimising with poison... Peikoff said that in the transition to a period of disintegration, it was necessary to pass through a period of misintegration, i.e. principled evil. As the Mormons are avaowed followers of Christ, I'm not sure a few "commandments" from Ayn Rand will eliminate their evil nature. Adding or creating "value" i.e. producing, is the mantra of the "Galt's Gulch" web forum, like an oft-repeated word from god. :dough:

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brandon, did you get my email with questions about your school?

Also, out of curiousity, what do you hope to gain from your discussion over at GGO?

I started drafting some posts myself. In addition to honing my debate skills, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of how anyone could possibly come to such conclusions after reading a work such as atlas shrugged. I'm curious what kind of responses my using A is A and the primacy of existence will draw. I'm also curious as to whether or not any of these people are (were before this topic) forum members here at oo.net.

EDIT!!!:

"No, the burden of proof is on he who challenges the assertion of others."

"From Cropperb's perspective, that is a valid conclusion.

From Heather's perspective the opposite is the case.

Both perspectives hold an element of truth."

Nevermind, I quit for now. I've fully rememered exactly what kinds of statements are used by those who have abandoned reason.

Edited by Nate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on a post regarding the Peikoff Dem debate. After having listened to DIM, I would say that this sort of forum that tries to compatiblize religion with Rand should be viewed less as a joke and more as a serious and deadly threat. It's worth taking a shot at some of these types.

These guys are just making stuff up, and ARI ought to say something about their use of "Galt's Gulch" as a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kendall, as I stated, I don't view this as a joke. However, I need to regroup before determining if and how to respond. My brain hit the meltdown point for today.

I don't mean to imply that you implied, blah, blah, just making this clear.

How about this for alarming?

"Objectivism and atheism are not synonimous. Ayn Rand was clear on this. The first is a search for truth, the latter is a disbelief in God. She only supported atheism as it departed from truth, but was seeking for truth in sincerity. I haven't read her books yet, but intend to genuinely do so.

copperb said:

I lament that [Ayn Rand] is so misunderstood and her most fundamental and important points are ignored.

The most fundamental and important points to whom?"

Maybe this user is on to something:

"Perhaps it would be usefull to discuss point by point the fundimental points of Objectivism?"

Considering the second point (after existence exists, or possibly third if you count consciousness as a seperate point from->), identity, refutes the existence of god. Although I sincerely doubt I will be able to convince any of these people that god does not exist, I do hope that I (or someone else) can at least convince them that such a belief is NOT compatible with objectivism.

Edit:

In regards to the above quote, I'd like to elaborate that it seemed to me as if the author was implying that atheism is not a requirement of objectivism.

Additionally, I did email ARI to at least notify them of the existence of this site. I'm not really sure what they can or should do about it.

Edited by Nate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kendall, as I stated, I don't view this as a joke. However, I need to regroup before determining if and how to respond. My brain hit the meltdown point for today.

I don't mean to imply that you implied, blah, blah, just making this clear.

No, I know you didn't mean it that way. I have considered that at minimum ARI ought to be notified. They may not care or be able to do anything about it, but should be made aware, especially with their emphasis on combating the influence of religion.

I quickly searched the net and it seems that claiming some sort of copyright is a weak claim, but maybe ARI could do so none the less and get them to change the name voluntarily.

How about this for alarming?

"Objectivism and atheism are not synonimous. Ayn Rand was clear on this. The first is a search for truth, the latter is a disbelief in God. She only supported atheism as it departed from truth, but was seeking for truth in sincerity. I haven't read her books yet, but intend to genuinely do so."

Stunning! The last sentence says it all, if one is ignorant of Rand. However, those on the board who are not ignorant of Rand, but reject her "other" ideas in favor of God should be taken to task.

In regards to the above quote, I'd like to elaborate that it seemed to me as if the author was implying that atheism is not a requirement of objectivism.

Additionally, I did email ARI to at least notify them of the existence of this site. I'm not really sure what they can or should do about it.

Woops. Didn't read that you notified them. Thanks, now I won't bother.

As to the quote, it read to me as though the author was treating atheism as a full philosophy in and of itself, kind of putting Objectivism and atheism on the same level and then saying they are not the same. If you look at atheism as a metaphysical statement and nothing more (no ethics, politics, etc), then it is fully incorporated into the Objectivist corpus. As such, Objectivism necessitates atheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick scan.

Here is some more gruesome ideology

"The Producer Mindset

1) A person’s ultimate ambition should be to attain happiness for himself and others through dedicated, principle-based service.

2) People have the only true intrinsic value.

3) There is and always will be an abundance of opportunity and prosperity for everyone, and the supply far outweighs all demand.

4) Other people are viewed as valuable assets, and we achieve prosperity through service to others.

5) Personal happiness and prosperity are internal choices, and are therefore achievable regardless of circumstance.

6) Money and material things are used to bless and serve other people."

I did a quick search of your posts copperb, and frankly, I'm not sure what is to be gained by interacting with them in the way that you are. I am unconvinced that it woudl be worth my time to try and frankly they'd probably kick me off their board for calling them on the dreamy, floating abstractionist rationalism they are spouting. NOtice the tendency to an intrinsic sort of altruism.

If anyone wants to see the effect of religion on philosophy, it's eye opening however.

Edited by KendallJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine who would be convinced by these "God-fearing Objectivists" other than folks who -- like them -- are grasping for some rationalization for their religion. There may be an odd person who comes to their site and ends up thinking that Objectivism has something to do with religion; but, there may also be some who come to their site because they're looking for a compatibility between religion and Objectivism, only to discover that it cannot be done.

If you guys are going to spend some time on the site, my suggestion would be to keep an eye out for the more honest members and focus on them. Oh yes, and don't get banned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a quick search of your posts copperb, and frankly, I'm not sure what is to be gained by interacting with them in the way that you are.....

Kendall,

If you look closely at the dates and times of my posts, you'll see they ALL took place in about three or five feverish days. I am no longer activly arguing (if that's the word for hitting your head against a deaf brick wall :) ) with them. However, I continue to scandalize them by posting excerpts from TIA Daily and such... :devil:

They are active in St George, and I'm moving to St George to start my school, so its one way of getting the word out, but I absolutely need to make my primary efforts elswhere. It is not a gathering of rational people, as I origianlly thought it was.

Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am no longer activly arguing...
I just went there to read some of the stuff. I must say that the guy with the Narnian lion avatar (something of a moderator?) appears to be quite a worthy opponent. It is tough arguing against deists because they appear to agree with everything one says, save one. The argument is all about Epistemology. (Unlike regular theists who want to trot out scripture for little stuff.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...