Tenderlysharp

The sum I get is the focus of what a man "IS". Man is an entity with a volitional consciousness, his choices depend on the effort he has invested into understanding his world.

The choice to think, to focus, to weigh the choice in the context of all his other knowledge is more difficult than to evade such effort. If he knows that his choices belong to him, he will not treat his wrong choices as though they were out of his control. Only by recognizing his ownership of his wrong choices can he proceed to right them. The same is true of all mankind's history. A man does not have to accept tradition only because one's ancestors did, without question. It is a premise Rand had to make in order to challenge the world with her new philosophy. Rand requires the same scrutiny by students of Objectivism to be applied to her philosophy as well. I am a person of self made soul, each decision I make becomes a part of who I am. Even if I make a certain choice consistently, I still understand the consequences of making a different choice. Being aware that the wrong choice is still possible helps to keep me alert, and gives the right choice more value. Even if it is in one's nature to act in a way that is perceived as shy, it is in the nature of human volition for that person to choose to learn how to overcome his shyness. A person is not determined before his choices. If he consistently chooses to be shy, you might say he was determined to be shy, but if he overcomes his shyness you might say he was determined to overcome his shyness. “Determined” can only be speculated after the fact. Believing in determinism is a handicap to the development of a volitional consciousness. The way to gauge the value of a man is through his reputation. If you know him well and he is consistent you have a higher probability of being able to trust him. But man is not omniscient, nor infallible. A man making a mistake is not as big a problem as a man consistently evading the effort of recognizing his volition in the matter.

The problem with Altruism is that it uses the best in man against himself. Of course men derive pleasure from generosity and benevolence to others, but that isn't altruism. In Objectivism: Altruism = Self Sacrifice Self Sacrifice = Suicide Suicide = death. On the other hand Happiness = Life Life = Self protection Self Protection = Volition Volition = Choice And Choice is not allowed in dictatorships that have manipulated mans desire to be kind by calling it Altruism and in the name of Altruism they to come into absolute power. They don't hesitate to sacrifice entire nations. Altruism is their most powerful weapon. So... to the extent that a man can be happy he is not currently killing himself. The defiance of Altruism is to protect the goodness in man that Altruism pretends and betrays. Buddhism suggests to those who are unhappy, to just try to be happy settling for less. This notion may offer relief from the misery of sleeping on the dirt by saying at least it isn't a hill of fire ants, but it isn't real happiness. Why are they not allowed to want more from life? Why do communist governments depend on censorship? Because they condescendingly do not trust a man to think for himself. Many of these old philosophies and religions were designed as a form of population control, when farming wasn't able to sustain human reproduction rates. Those who could not settle for less were despised by those who could. Those who could not conform to unlivable standards were picked off one by one by the mob. This is one reason altruists shun money as materialistic, and treat it as something corrupt and dirty, so they don't have to feel bad about taking it. Another reason is that if the owner of the money sees it as something bad he won't have such a problem giving it up.

I am still interested in the question about the Grandma because of the power she has over the majority vote. She is the carrot on a stick that the bureaucracy dangles in order to take an inordinate amount of money they shovel into their bottomless hole. Reducing and removing social security was not high on Ayn Rand's list of priorities. Political action was premature during Ayn Rand's lifetime. It is not possible before people are ready to understand why certain courses of action are necessary. If Grandma wants to remain irrational, Objectivism holds that it is not a virtue to continue attempting to convince her. It is better to leave her to her own devices and let nature take its course. It is more productive to look for rational people who will be more receptive to rational ideas i.e. women who are not yet Grandmas, and who don't want to end up as helpless victims of fate. “Grandma” is more than a person, it is a concept. She is a parent's mother, she is of a certain age range, she shares a similar cultural history with the women around her, and she shares a certain universal similarity to all Grandmas who have ever lived, who are living now, and who will ever live. There are women who achieve excellence in grandmotherhood. Certain circumstances are changing, and unique to this century, women are no longer at the mercy of men. Helplessness is not an essential human state, a person ought to do everything to ensure she experiences as little helplessness as possible, enslaving others to this purpose will only expand helplessness to her victim and waste two lives. Life is about more than barely scraping by. Each Grandmother has her own potential to strive for, higher and nobler than the afflictions of a mindless hoard. Her dead weight is not a justification for taking anything from anyone else. If she values rationality and wants something from another person she ought to look for any possible way to generate something of value to trade. It is to her self interest to inspire herself over the long range course of her life so that she neither wants nor needs someone's pity or hand outs. If she came to see such offerings as offensive to her own sense of self respect she would have more focus toward long range choices. The influence she can have on her offspring is immense. If she inspires her children to work hard, to think, and to strive the be the best they can be, they will have a better chance of being successful, and they will be more willing to repay her for her investment in them. If her children do not love her it is because she hasn't done anything to earn or inspire their admiration. If her own children have nothing to repay why should a stranger value her?

It is good to consider targeting your audience to give you the most return on your investment. What is your goal when approaching your opposition? What steps are necessary to get the response you desire? What do you want him to do? Do you want feedback from him? What are his intentions? What does he want? The more you know about a subject the better your case. Develop your message, say it in the most concise way possible. On a short attention span media like youtube it is more productive to make one good precise point illustrated in a creative way. Perhaps you are attracted to the argument because you want clarity on the issues of no conflicts of interest in Objectivism. How do you gauge the long range success of your actions?

Answer's reveal a person's priorities. I am usually more interested in having discussions about Ayn Rand with people on this forum, or with those whom I know personally. Be aware that he is setting you up for a "gotcha", he already believes anyone who responds is only responding mindlessly from the "cult". This paradigm he has already created is a sign that he may not respond favorably, but he is not essential. The essential you are aiming for is anyone in your audience who might be rational. You don't have to overtly tell the antagonist that he is not essential, but keep it in mind when forming your argument. Building a common premise gives more of a foundation to stand on. Ask questions at first, questions that relate to something the two of you may already have in common. Rather than jumping out of the gate in opposition, appeal to what ever rational faculty he may have. For instance, he does not like cults. Figure out what can be construed as cult like behavior. Then, Illustrate how Ayn Rand is in opposition to cults? What about Objectivism seems like a cult? Being sure, having convictions, a superior attitude, being closed minded... all make people afraid of cults. Pragmatism is a rebellion against absolute certainty, it has also been used as a self defense against various cults that have risen up throughout history. I would say: "What is wrong with freedom of speech, independence, self respect, reason, rationality, focus, the necessity of choice, volition? A cult is diametrically opposed to all of these. Cults thrive on selfless, defenseless, irrational, dazed people who never made or wanted to make an important choice in their lives, and they give that choice over to the power of the cult. Ayn Rand was opposed to cult like behavior. She valued argument, and questioning. She wanted fully conscious, focused, thoughtful people in her life. She wasn't opposed to charity or benevolence, she simply meant it is impossible to give genuinely if one is forced to give at the point of a gun. Because when generosity is forced, expected, and unappreciated it naturally turns into resentment. No one's life is yours to waste. I don't expect you to believe anything I say without thinking about it." I have been thinking it is "self defense" that those opposed to Objectivism seem to feel so threatened by. Delve deeply into many of these random online conversations and you will see how controlling the antagonist usually is, how he projects his own control issues onto Objectivism. I have observed that he becomes insecure when his usual emotional manipulation tactics don't work against Objectivists. He uses emotion as a tool of cognition and so his attacks intensify in search of an emotional response. Being a closed system doesn't mean mankind can't gain new knowledge, it means that Ayn Rand is no longer here to defend herself, nor to admit where she might have been wrong. There were times when she admitted she was wrong while she was alive, and amended her position.

Why did Ayn Rand believe that certain types of modern art, certain types of modern dance, certain types of modern music have a disintegrating effect on consciousness? Why is integration/“dis”integration important enough for her to refrain from giving work she perceived as disintegrating the title “Art”? Integration is a key concept in the formation of Existence/Identity/Consciousness. Non-objective art seems to project a world that does not exist, void of anything that could be construed as existing in reality. How does existence integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art? What is the significance of purposefully barring the inclusion of an entity, an identity, from non-objective art? How does Identity integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art? How is the mind to concretize broad abstractions based on context of what is in their perception when viewing non-objective art? How does Consciousness integrate/disintegrate when viewing non-objective art? If non-objective art seems to be what ever the viewer wants it to be, how does this concept apply to the rest of the viewers existence?

Are Major Objectivists considered to be celebrities? The owners and/or members of online forums could provide some incentive, or structured event to attract them. Was Ayn Rand reimbursed for her time during her speeches at the Ford Hall Forums? Did she see a considerable increase in book sales after the event? Were tickets sold for entry? Paid entry significantly raises the quality of participants. A questionnaire for participants to fill out will also raise the quality participants. A previous submission of questions could be organized in a way to prioritize the time. Would there be enough members here willing to participate in order to make it a viable event? Are Major Objectivists rewarded for their participation in the annual Objectivist Summer Conferences? Are the owners of Online forums treating their cyber-space as a charity or as a business? An Objectivist Summer Conference seems to cost about $2,000. Are the owners of online forums willing to spend that in order to make connections with dedicated Objectivists who would make this a more attractive environment?

I like the substance of the people in your work, they have a weight, density, and presence. The lines have a dynamic compositional energy, and the green is a nice contrast to the skin tone. In this one, there is a great deal of energy radiating from her, a heat in the light in front of her, and a rocket ship energy below her. The blackness in the center giving her a contrast of weight and stability. Thank you for sharing your work here.

This is why one ought to be willing to agree with Ayn Rand before calling himself an Objectivist. Worthy of money, or attention, or time. Ayn Rand deemed Leonard Peikoff worthy of her presence and attention during her lifetime. His questions inspired a great deal of the clarification that took place during the development of her non-fiction works. Ayn Rand refined the concept of inheritance; no longer an accident of birth, it became another extension of conscious volition. Ayn Rand demanded a great deal from everyone in her close circle of friends. This is where individuals have the space to grow with the development of human knowledge. When Leonard Piekoff says something is or isn't Objectivism he does so as consistently as he can, as the custodian Ayn Rand's rights. Each individual has to decide for himself, based on his own evaluation, his relationship to Objectivism. Your reputation is valuable to the development of the important relationships in your life but, the volitional functioning of your mind and your quest for rationality and truth are more essential. I see Leonard Peikoff's claim that he is Ayn Rand's intellectual heir as a self assessment; a statement of self esteem. He obviously respects the efficacy of his own mind. As in all of Objectivism, any statement ought to be evaluated by your own judgment, rather than taking anyone's authority for it. During Ayn Rand's lifetime Leonard Peikoff was the most consistent.

"Rational" is the word you keep missing when Objectivists talk about self interest. The self interest of a plant is less than the self interest of an animal, the self interest of an animal is less than the self interest of a human. When Ayn Rand talks about a man she is talking about a rational consciousness. The self interest necessary for the “Rational” to survive. A human being is not a natural resource, he is not coal to be mined, he is not a crop to be harvested, he is not to be taken out of context of his nature. His nature requires freedom in order to live up to his highest potential, his mind can not function as a slave. The concept of slavery has only been eradicated in the last hundred years. The concept of being egomaniacal and the concept of altruism are remnants of that slave mentality. A man who is interested in himself does not need to enslave, he does not need to allow anyone else to enslave him. Why should Objectivists leave the word self interest in the custody of slave drivers? Objectivism is not for those who wish to be slaves, nor for those who wish to enslave. It reveals to a Rational Man that unearned guilt, unjustified fear, and his consent are the only things a parasite needs to keep him a slave. It teaches man that he is not a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control, he is responsible for feeding his own destroyers. What you may be wondering is if it is worth your time to read about Objectivism. An Objectivist doesn't want you to take anything from any authority but the rationality of your own mind. I could tell you that the 64 pages of “This Is John Gault Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged are 64 of the most important pages written in human history, but why should you take it on my authority? I am wondering if it is worth my time to encourage you to read one book, no one can read the book for you, and no Objectivist wants to waste their time on someone who doesn't want to invest their own time on Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said it so eloquently, and thoroughly, and she already spent her time saying it, it seems redundant to spend our time saying it. The six books I have read of hers over and over again have expanded my consciousness. I am so much more powerful and alive, it is tragic to me to remember the time before I had them. No one can give that to you, it is something you have to earn.

When I said "you have to learn what happiness is" it includes all of the qualities you mention here and:

A Major Objectivist may have interesting answers to this question. Perhaps he is satisfied with the people he communicates with in his walking life. Perhaps online forums don't rate high on his list of priorities. There are a lot of anonymous viewers, a Major Objectivist could just read, and reserve his responses for the content of his next book. (Its funny this idea just gave me the image of a Catholic confessional, where the priest uses the problems of his congregation as fodder for his next sermon) Argument is a valuable development tool. Arguing with someone who doesn't get what you are trying to communicate takes a lot more time than clarifying the issue to yourself because you don't have to investigate the definitions and context that they seem to be missing. Perhaps Major Objectivists have had so many arguments that the arguments repeat themselves and they no longer have the fire to sing the same old song again and again. The key to the problem usually lies in the volition and ability to hold context of the one who doesn't understand (things that cant be taught). Objectivism has been clarified in many books, which also makes certain subjects redundant. What would make an Online forum attractive to a Major Objectivist? Do you wish to interact with Major Objectivists? What would inspire them to interact with you (i.e, what will you trade)? If you were a Major Objectivist what would you be looking for in a forum? You could visit the web sites of Major Objectivists with questions that are of a quality that would inspire the initiation of a dialogue. How would the personal interaction of a Major Objectivist affect the freshman? A few encouraging words from a hero has translated into tremendous volitional incentive for me. But, I knew that I have a lot of growth ahead of me before I can become his peer. I don't want to waste his time until I am ready to inspire him the way he has inspired me. Ayn Rand's books have a great deal of encouragement, the fact that she was alive in this world is an encouragement. One reason I am here is to become worthy of living friends who inspire me the way she does. When I come to that place I may spend more of my time with them in person and in private. I like this perspective, it does seem like Online forums are a kind of stairway for development and affirmation. This brings up a lot of corollary questions in my mind: If a regular member were to become a Major Objectivist would they continue coming here? What kind of organization and commitments of his time is a Major Objectivist engaged in? What is the nature of this Online forum? What is the nature of the members I interact with? What am I looking for; what is the nature of my participation; am I getting out of it what I am putting into it? Where is there room for improvement?

Again I want to reiterate that Art is a personal issue, not a social issue. Ayn Rand had no interest in forcing people to her way of thinking, while at the same time she refused to accept what she believed was wrong. Standing her ground does not mean she intends to force anyone. The idea of force is so entrenched in the subjective/collective way of thinking that they refuse to recognize that Ayn Rand repeatedly said she was speaking only for herself. When you accuse Ayn Rand of attempting to force others to accept her view of art you are accusing her of the opposite of everything she believed. It is the straw man that her antagonists try to substitute her with. There is no force taking place in the Romantic Manifesto. Your agreement with her views can never be forced. When other people disagree with your disagreement they ought to be seen as standing on their own judgment. Only by respecting their judgment and understanding it do you have a chance to build a bridge between their understanding and yours. ....the full context of a man's life, needs, goals and knowledge.... -- The essential in art is integration. Integration of body and mind. Integration of existence and consciousness. There is no body without mind, there is no mind without body. Integration of the art that is being viewed with what the viewer experiences. If you want non-objective art to be appreciated by Objectivists you have to show the specific ways it integrates with consciousness. Those who are uninterested, or are in opposition to your case are not the essential concern. The essential concern is to continue presenting cases for integration, to improve the case for integration, to come at the case for integration in different ways. You must trade value for value, if he does not value your case he will not grant his approval. When he will not grant his approval you either make another case that he may trade his approval for, or you stop trying to get his approval. Engaging in a personal attack because he does not wish to give you his approval is not a trade, it is a waste of time and energy and it reveals that you are incapable of respecting disagreement. It also tempts him into attacking you in retaliation, which further dissolves the potential for mutual respect. The initiation of a personal attack or insult is not a substitute for a rational argument.

I think happiness is a habit where the good thoughts take up more real estate in your mind. There is only so much room, there is only so much time. Happiness is a choice, you have to learn what happiness is, and strive and struggle for it. Achieving happiness is like fighting gravity, it is so easy to lay down against misery. It takes effort to be happy.

Altruism's appeal to Grandma's greed is exactly why it is so evil. It fools people into thinking it is a good idea, while it quietly destroys the very foundation upon which they could have stood. Its evils are the blinders people place on the nature of reality. The poor man sees a productive man and he doesn't want to learn what that man did to earn his money, the poor man doesn't want to exert the effort necessary to be like the productive man, the poor man doesn't want to think about anything he just wants the "rich" man's money. He is a thief and he assumes all men are thieves and he can't imagine that a productive man earned his money by adding to the world rather than taking from it. You keep asking 'If Grandma can get away with it then why shouldn't she?' Well I am saying why should she? Why should she get away with living a lie? Why shouldn't Grandma worry over how miserable all of her grand kids are because they can't buy their own homes, they can barely make rent, they are going hungry, they dont' get enough attention, their relationships are breaking up over money problems, they move back in with her, and they are getting drunk all the time in order to escape the reality they don't want to face. Why should I dissipate the fight for my own future on a person who never fought for anything important? Why should I let the grandchildren I will have one day inherit a bigger mountain of debt?

But its ok for her to hire or black mail a bank robber into getting money for her? Or vote him into office?

I remember Ayn Rand talking about how she liked the serenity prayer in AA, "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Ayn Rand never advocated an Objectivist Utopia; she wanted enough of a majority to ensure that rights were not violated. When and if such a time comes... No more excuses, no more playing the victim, no more excessive weight to carry, efficiency, a striving toward greater potential. But man is not infallible. History has shown the principles of rationality have ebbed and flowed. A season of prosperity gained by rational development has often been followed by generations who had it too easy, took the wealth of those times for granted, had no understanding of the principles that made the wealth possible, and squandered it. I think social stability as I do inheritance. There are families whom generation after generation maintain successful productive lives. There are also families who's next generation flush it all down the toilet. It would be wise to figure out the difference. In a world where we suddenly turn Objectivist, we could just as suddenly turn into pumpkins.

It is easy to say 'Stop being Muslim' But how is a Muslim to make such a transition. He would naturally resist the idea of Sacrificing the moral investment he has made over the course of his life. Muslims are human beings with the capacity to be rational. What concepts would he be willing to accept as a starting place? Human Rights maybe, the value of a human life. A greater emphasis on the passages where his holy books support the value of human life. I posted this video in another thread about belief, but it is necessary to preface what I mean when I talk about God. When I use God in the following dialogue I mean "The highest Possible to Me" I joined an 'Everybody Draw Mohamad' group to take part in the discussion. Since then there have been several Muslims messaging me personally to express their disapproval in my participation. I take that as an opportunity to introduce some rationality into their thinking, while trying not to blind them with offensiveness. Here is one such conversation: I shortened his name for privacy. Please note that I also found it more productive to use Babelfish to translate everything I say in these conversations into Arabic, and back into English over and over again until what I put in makes sense coming back out. Between You and Muhammad Ib Muhammad Ib February 4 at 12:34pm Hey tym, this is a random message, how r u by the way, i just wanted to ask u......... u look like a really nice person... why would u want to hurt other peoples feelings.... i mean by joining "Everyday is Draw Mohammad/Muhammad Day!"........ as u know life is short... why live in anger or in making other people unhappy... ? Tym February 4 at 11:57pm I appreciate that you want to make peace, I never drew one of those images, but there are people who's lives are threatened for drawing them, and life is more important than an image. Muhammad Ib February 6 at 2:58am thats really good if u didn't draw, and u r right about life being more important than an image, but u should see the view of Muslims, they don't want to kill anyone or they dont like to hurt people, tell me one thing, this world has millions and trillions of things to draw, then why do they hurt the feelings of the Muslims, and it is not that they don't know, everyone knows that Muslims don't like people making drawings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and they should respect that as Muslims respect everyone, if Muslims believe in something that others dont, it doesn't mean that Muslims are wrong, others should research that why are Muslims so aggressive about listening or seeing bad about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was no normal human being, He was Allah's Prophet and we all should respect that. Muslims respect all the Prophets that came earlier than him as they were mentioned in the Quran as the Prophets of Allah. I would take strict action against someone who tries to degrade Prophet Jeus, Moses (PBUH) or any other Prophet. The thing is that Muslims respect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) after Allah the most and then the others, even more than their parents, now u can have an idea of what a Muslim feels when he sees or hears something about Him (PBUH). U can take a small example from our daily lives. If someone uses foul language against your parents or someone u love, would u like that person, would u leave that person, u would not, that is confirmed. Hope u understand what i mean. We can discuss more if u want to. I want to clear peoples image of the Muslims and the entire Islam. Tym February 9 at 2:45pm There are reasonable people and unreasonable people. A controversy gives us the opportunity to communicate and come to understanding. It may seem like a negative thing they are doing but nothing they say can truly degrade anything that is good. "I would take strict action against someone who tries to degrade..." For those who draw the images the issue is about 'Control' ...about being forced. I understand that most Muslims don't want to hurt any one, and I have tried to get the more angry people who draw these images to understand how they are being excessive and stereotyping all Muslims when only a small minority of Muslims have threatened people's lives over these images. "if Muslims believe in something that others dont, it doesn't mean that Muslims are wrong, " In the western way of thinking a man's mind can not be forced, if we come to God or Allah it has to be of our own free will. It is better to focus on the good aspects of your beliefs in order to inspire someone to agree with you, rather than threaten him if he does not. How can Muslims have their beliefs protected, while at the same time forcibly disregarding the beliefs of others? The people who draw these images would never force you to draw one. Muhammad Ib February 10 at 11:47am u r rite tym every person has his own free will, and every person will not be deprived of his free will until he or she dies. After dying that individual will be judged, if u believe this or not, it is the true thing u will believe when u will not exist in this world, so it is better not to do the wrong things before finishing the time of forgiveness. and threatening for some Muslims is what they actually mean to do, and for some it is a way of showing people that dont try to do this or we will do something, u know the world is a cruel place, people dont think until they are shaken, because allot of Muslims have taught people about the importance of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to us, still if they want to be cruel they can be, don't be offended, i'm just trying to say this that its not only the Muslims that should respect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), i know u don't believe in Him, because you never tried to read about Him (PBUH), or get to know for what cause He (PBUH) came here, and He (PBUH) was not only for the ARABS He (PBUH) came for the whole world as the last Messenger of Allah. Try reading the biography or some information about Him (PBUH), you'll know what beauty u r missing in this world. At least once try to read the teachings of QURAN and HADEETH. Tym February 10 at 4:04pm I have read some teachings of QURAN and HADEETH, and I find them interesting. I had a great love of God before reading them, and my love continues to grow with the writings of many different holy teachings. There are 7 billion people on the planet, many know nothing of Islam. Most people are good, kind, and productive. God speaks in many ways to all of them. "Evil forces have no creative power" is an important idea to contemplate. Creative power is the opposite of killing. There seems to be no demonstration of creative power through offensive behavior. In this controversy over drawings two evils struggle against each other blinding the good they both want. It takes less mental effort to kill than it does to inspire your adversary to think. Being offended is a complex issue in Western culture. Friends tease each other to share laughter. They know it is really ridiculous, it improves their friendship. Their friendship is more powerful than words. Because even the harshest criticism has your best interest at heart. It seems like a contradiction to suggest that perhaps God is in the heart of those who draw these drawings. It is their way of speaking out against killing. Offending you does not seem like a productive way to communicate. It is offensive that their lives are threatened. Their life is a part of God's creation. As long as a man lives he has the chance to grow, it is not correct to end his life too soon. It is right to stop a man from damaging you physically. It is better to avoid, and ignore them if they try to offend you. Why would God create a man, give him the ability to think and question, and then send other men to torture him for questioning? Muhammad Ib February 11 at 2:30am yeah true, i'm 90 percent with your thinking. and the last thing u said is very true and beautiful that "Why would God create a man, give him the ability to think and question, and then send other men to torture him for questioning?"..... if everyone was good their would be no use of making this world, then all should be in heaven... true..... well it was good to talk to u.... thanks for talking.... giving your time to talk to me...... may Allah give us guidance.... Allah Hafiz (Bye). it will be good to talk to u in the future.... Tym February 11 at 10:17am Thank you for talking with me as well. May God inspire us. Muhammad Ib February 11 at 10:28pm Report (: - - - *A note about me saying “May God inspire us” it was a response to the Muslim custom of saying “Allah Hafiz” which translates to 'God protect you'. I believe the Muslims are more in need of inspiration than protection.

It is interesting to see Ayn Rand's take on God in interviews. She knew how meaningful the concept of God was to man, she appreciated it as a primitive form of morality. When asked "You might even thank God for it[this country]?" She said "Yes, I may not literally mean a God, but I like what that expression means "Thank God" or "God bless you", it means the highest possible to me, and I would certainly thank God for this country." (At the end of this video) Lack of proof is the easiest fact to refer to, but it doesn't break a mans emotional connection to the investment he has made in all matters of morality he ascribes to God, and what God has meant to him. Part of the process includes seeing how religion has manipulated mans desire to believe in God, and used it to justify atrocities. Why do men believe in God? What are its benefits? What are its drawbacks? Man's nature includes a need for hero worship, your desire to look up to an ideal is being projected onto a God, as it might be projected onto a muse, an imaginary friend, or a fiction character. (Which are powerful tools in the creative process, and in making value oriented decisions) Looking up to other men you can admire and learn from could fill that void in a more detailed and tangible way. I look at nature, and see the complex engineering involved in something like an eyeball, and it seems that some form of intelligence in inherent in nature. How does nature "know" that there is light, how does it move in the direction of the construction of an optic nerve? Is it possible for an organism to communicate its needs to the evolutionary process? The answer seems to be the process is automatic, that it has always been here. Can nature know what it takes to produce the possibility of a rational consciousness? Is consciousness one of its goals? Can the immense universe be shrunk into the personification of a man shaped God in the clouds?

A rational man doesn't have the luxury of taking the present out of context from past and future events.

She blindly puts herself at the mercy of an impersonal system that is failing. Her vote isn't going to guarantee anything if there is no money to vote toward herself.

Objectivism is a hero worshiping, man valuing philosophy. Man is a standard of value. A rational, conscious, individual man. Obligation poisons a relationship by negating mutual respect, inspiration, and the effort necessary to keep a rational consciousness interested in the relationship; obligated relationships are taken for granted. Relationships are valuable when they are the result of your own volition; choosing to help the disabled man has more value than if you are forced. When men are forced into an impersonal system, care for the disabled man diminishes because the 'system' that cares for them is taken for granted. Force insinuates that man is not capable of valuing another man unless he is forced to do so.