NOTJOHNGALT?

Parts of it seems to work, and parts of it don't. The objects in the movie tend to remind you that the world as we know it exists.. Which detracts from some aspects of what Rand is trying to say and adds to other aspects of what Rand is trying to say. Its just getting the objects in the movie to line up with the context's which Rand's dialogue is taking place in. So it is detractful when Dagny pulls up in a modern car, while trying to deliver some meaningful dialogue about Atlas Shrugged. Rand's work grew in popularity as it grew older because the objects in the world Rand created take on a Nostalgic feel. Hanks' car was probably a Rolls-Royce Phantom or Silver Ghost.. So the very objects in the book have lost their actual existence as they existed in that day and take on a glamorized nostalgic quality, so the further ahead you go in time the more beautiful Atlas Shrugged will become to people. Taggart Transcontinental in my mind were 8-4-4-2 Steam Locomotives all stream lined, and black and sleek. So their is this huge Nostalgia to Atlas Shrugged in 2010... But It does get its point across to audiences, because what is the ultimate point of Atlas Shrugged, to get people to stop trying to destroy acheivement and acheivers which is Rand's point from the Book Anthem onward. So it will still have its proper effect on audiences.

I think that "Women" had to make this movie.. Women had to script, direct, film, edit and score this film. It is not incidental to Rand's work that Atlas Shrugged was written by a Woman. If you have ever been self-employed, or CEO, that position is loved by Women. Alot of Atlas Shrugged can only be framed properly by a Woman. That is why it works for men. And only a Woman can properly script, write , direct, film and score The Movie Atlas Shrugged.. If you have ever been in an position of Authority, WOMEN LOVE CEO'S .. BECAUSE THEY ARE SHARP, HOT, ETC. CEO'S ARE THE ULTIMATE TURN ON FOR WOMEN.. And that is why its not incidental that a Woman wrote Atlas Shrugged.. Who else can take all of a man into his proper frame but a Woman.. Because being in positions of private control and authority is a turn on for women. Atlast Shrugged is ultimately Rand's sexual expression of her turn on's , her desires etc. That is why it comes across like it does. Atlas Shrugged is part Flirt with a certain type of man by Rand. Atlas Shrugged was written by a Woman. The Movie Atlas Shrugged had to be made by a woman. That is why it works in the book, but doesn't work on film as well.

I am dealing with Objectivisms Athiesm. I am saying that it takes God to sustain Atheism, and that Objectivism is entirely dependant upon God and Atheism Both. And didn't Rand make that same point when she said, "I am looking for men of Egotism where such may be found, My writing of them is proof that such men do exist." So just what we are saying. When Rand bases Objectivism on Athiesm, she makes the whole body of her work dependant upon God if for no other use then peoples denial of himself. I am stating that Objectivism dies without God.

YOU ARE USING ATHEISM IN A RELATIVE SENSE (TWO PERSONS/GROUPS RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER) BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS ACTUAL DEFINITION. I AM MERELY ASSERTING THAT IT TAKES GOD TO SUPPORT RAND'S DENIAL OF HIMSELF, IT TAKES GOD TO SUPPORT RAND'S ATHIESM. AND IN FACT IF EVERYONE GOT TO TRUE GODLESSNESS IN OBJECTIVISM THEY WOULD ABANDON IT AND RANDS WORK WOULD DIE OUT. I think that fact that you can actually find God in Rand's work is what makes it so beautiful. Rand's Novel's are just beautiful. They truly are.. Rands universe is beautiful, and it takes God being in Rand's universe for people to find beauty in her novels. Rand's atheism is the glimpse of God that you can find in Rands work..

But that is the point, CAN you make a DENIAL THAT 'OBJECT A' EXISTS WITHOUT HAVING A CONCEPT FOR 'OBJECT A'?? IF 'OBJECT A' DOESN'T EXIST THEN YOU CAN NEVER RATIONALLY MAKE A DENIAL OF ITS EXISTENCE, BECAUSE YOU NEVER COME TO THE QUESTION RATIONALLY BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER FIND 'OBJECT A' TO DENY ITS EXISTENCE.

I am being logical, If something actually doesn't exist, then you cannot derive any further concepts having anything to do with that object. Non-existence of God, makes Athiesm useless as a concept, hence Athiesm is useless once God doesn't exist. Because it takes God to keep Athiesm actual.. So yes, I am being logical. Well defining Athiesm with respect to if your pink toaster exists or not, is pretty pointless in Objectivism, because Objectivism's point is that God doesn't exist, hence Rand's Athiesm.. I am merely asserting that God must exist for Rand's athiesm to exist, and in fact Rand's entire body of work does have God in it, and Rand's stated position of being an Athiest makes GOD MOST NECESSARY IN HER UNIVERSE. Hence there is a flaw in Objectivism, it is my further contention that without this flaw in Objectivism Rand's work will die without it. Rand's work will die without Rand's Atheism. So God must be in Rand's work for Rand to be Athiest hence that is why people still find Objectivism viable because God is in Fact in it and that on some level people know this, which is why they stay with objectivism.

Not Believing doesn't create NON-Existence.. Rand's Athiesm never denies God's existence. merely deals with her belief in his non-existence. Which still doesn't create God's actual Non-existence merely Rand's Atheism. YEs one Universe, which Rand was only Athiest in, So God was in Rand's universe also, hence Rand's Atheism makes God in Rand's universe absolutely necessary. Hence my assertion that Objectivism nor Rand can survive without her Athiesm nor the God that Rand's Atheism need to exist for there to be a Non-Belief in God. In order for Objectivists to Not Believe in God, God must stand there and let Objectivists not believe in himself. Is this a Trick?? NO.. I spent years as an Objectivist back in the early 90's.. I like alot of what Rand has to say about society. I think rand is right in alot of ways, but her Athiesm is the flaw in her work, and in fact one which must stay in her work if it is to survive, because you see God is still in Rand's work, even marginally. And in fact that Rand's work will dissapear without God.

Yes but what if your entity is GOD.. Entity EGG exists?? how?? Why did lightning in the primoridial ooze create amino acids??? WHY??? Why Amino Acids?? Couldn't it have created like hardened carbon with one less oxygen molecule or something, why did it create Amino Acids??

Non belief in God does nothing to God's existence. Existence or Non-existence must come first. Belief can only come afterwards. But belief cannot cause something to exist or not exist.. SO GOD!!<----- there it is again.. Objectivist, "we don't believe that.." GOD<----there it is again.. Objectivist, "We still don't believe that.." The basis for the concept of atheism is the fact that some people refuse to accept that deities exist , despite the fact that other people assert that they do exist. This is all that is required for the valid concept of atheism to exist and for a logically valid reason. All I am saying is that if GOD doesn't exist, then you can't get to a concept of Athiesm.. If God is truly non-existent then no one would claim that God exists and Athiesm ceases to exist. Is all I am saying. In other words In a Godless universe, there is not such word as God, hence Athiesm never exists..

Hooray!!! I was thinking about the other day..

Lets not deal with ownership right now, and merely talk the concept itself. If you are certain that GOD has an absolute Non-existence then you can't derive a definition for any notion of a Concept that has Belief as its definition about that non-existent object in this case GOD. So lets start at the beginning.. God... Doesn't exist. well GOD.. GOD, "Well I don't know.." NOTJOHNGALT?, "You don't exist." GOD, "I KNOW.." NOTJOHNGALT?, 'What should we do??" GOD, "I AM WORKING ON IT!" NOTJOHNGALT?, "Please hurry!!"

My whole point is that Rand saves her religiousity by being merely Athiest.. My further point is that Objectivist cannot exist without Rand's religiousity as Rand has it, Rand merely being Athiest isn't Godless, hence Rand's work absolutely depends on Rand not actually quantifying a Universe where God is Non-existent. Rand's universe merely has Athiesm, not Godlessness.

Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Doesn't believe in GOD!) That doesn't cause God's Non-existence. Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Only Truly Believes that God Does not Exist) That does not cause God's Non-existence either. Hence my point stands , UTTER LACK OF GOD (God's actual NON-existence) deny's the possibility of Atheism's existence as a result. and So therefore Rand wasn't truly Godless merely Athiest. God existed and Rand merely Chose to not-Believe in God. Or God existed and Rand (using your words) Merey TRULY BELIEVES THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST; and Rand wasn't Godless merely Athiest. If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that, because it takes a BELIEF about a NOn-existent Object to come up with a concept of a Belief in a Non-existent Object, which it is irrational to formalize a concept for something that doesn't exist if it doesn't exist. You quickly get to a reductio ad infinitum with God always existing..

I have read all of Ayn Rand's novels.. She stops short in most of them, She doesn't reach her own point. Ayn Rand proclaims herself to be an Atheist. That is what Saves Rand from True Godlessness. IF YOU CAN FIND THE ABSOLUTE UTTER LACK OF GOD IN RAND'S WORKS. A PERSONS WHO HAS TRULY COME TO A CONCEPT OF "UTTER LACK OF GOD." WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION , "Are you an Athiest?", By replying , "NO!" Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept. Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand's Work, why?? Because of the flaw that Ayn Rand introduced by proclaiming herself to be an Athiest. If Rand had gotten to TRUE GODLESSNESS, She would have also proclaimed that she wasn't an Athiest also. Ayn Rand was an Athiest. She had God in that tiniest sense. Both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have God in them, in the barest essence in their Atheism. Which is why there for a time Objectivists started trying to Integrate a Notion of God into Objectivism. Well it is there in Rand's Athiesm itself. Rand's Mere Athiesm is one step short of TRUE GODLESSNESS. The opposite attempt is to Rid Objectivism of God altogether by comming to an "UTTER LACK OF GOD" which will destroy Atheism itself. Objectivism has God in it, in the narrowest sense, in the smallest amount. And that is as far as Rand could go philosophically. If she had gone further she would have found herself stairing at the Ultimate Question. Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn't deny God's existence at all. Which is what has objectivists seeking an integrated notion of Objectivism and God. Which is what will ultimately save Objectivism itself. Objectivism cannot survive without God.... It is interesting that it takes a flaw in Objectivism to keep it viable to people as a system of thinking. Christ puts no stipulation on the socio-economic model that man lives in. Which is why also that man can live with Communism for 80+ years also. Christ will allow man to exist in a purely Capitalistic Society as much as he will allow man to exist in a Purely Communist Society. To abandon God because you want Capitalism is erroneous thinking also. To abandon God because some men will not let you have a purely Capitalistic Society, is flawed thinking as well. You think that people would abandon those people and not Abandon God, but nope.. That guy over their voted me into Socialism, I think I will abandon God in retaliation, Just doesn't make any sense. So Rand's fit started about Communists and rightfully so, she was powerless about that and chose atheism instead. But Christ is left Scratching his head because Jesus Christ never told Ayn Rand that she wasn't allowed to make any money or to Own Property, ie, That Trading powerhouse, The House of Hurr. So perhaps it is possible to live in a Capitalist world and not abandon God also, seems possible to myself. Just as it is possible, to feed the homeless around here without a Communist's Makorov Pistol to your head also.