TLD

You are missing part of the message. I said fully understand and accept. None of those did that!

True - but that's not what I or anyone else said. Agreeing and fully understanding are 2 different things.

Does one really need to explain how the actions of Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, and Arianna Huffington are non-Obj.ist? Yes, if one truly understands Obj.ism but does not agree with it, he could teach it. Have you seen one of those people? If one agrees and then disagrees, yes - he did not fully understand and agree with it. We're talking a complete philosophy here, not a simple idea that one can easily change his mind on.

Sorry; what I meant was that one does not need to be so clear on the principles that he is able to "sell" or speak fluently on Obj.ism. I see a huge gap between some who live by Obj.ism well but cannot easily explain the principles to others, and those who continue to study (not just "on the job") to become more proficient.

No, it is definitely possible to say they were never Obj.ists. One's actions tell all.

One interesting correction: I think it is fair to call yourself an Obj.ist if you understand and live by all the essentials of Obj.ism but do not choose to "continue (your) education" - do not care to continually read philsophy. Some people live it without "selling" it.

Just to answer this question - which has come up in conversation many times: I believe the proper answer is 100%. If someone truly understands Obj.ism and can call himself an Obj.ist, there should be no reason - and he certainly would be applying reason - to change. I have never known a true Obj.ist to stop being one. Re those who only flirt with Obj.ism but get converted away in college, it doesn't matter.

You don't have to point out the obvious; that's partially why these forums extend so long. I was merely noting that her positions on fundamental principles are not hard to determine; I said nothing about fully absorbing those positions and all on which they rest. I did not take ctrl_y's question as merely wanting an Obj. take on Swinburne's take on God. He started with "I intend to make a sustained argument for the existence of a god on this forum." As far as I am concerned, that is out! And I think he was just looking for a refutation for a debate with someone else. Isn't that using Obj.ists for the wrong reason?

I don't believe that total objection to the fundamentals of Objectivism qualifies as "honest disagreement." If a person reads Rand at all, he should understand Rand's positions on fundamental principles. Presenting counter arguments presented by opposers of Rand's philosoophy should be considered out of place here.

I would say it does not fit anywhere here. Read Rand and see that there is no room for such mysticism. Or read other posts on religion that have likely covered what you need.

It is healthy to want to be the best you can be, and challenging yourself to be the best in the class is one way to achieve that. That is not "for the sake of being better than others." The latter can create another problem: if you are not better (say in class) than another and still want to beat him but fail, then you have created a dilemma that could hurt you psychologically and result in envy.

Depends on the context. Competition is inherent in the act of producing something - in free trade. It is not the goal but the by-product of same. In competitive activities outside the realm of producing - e.g. sports, there really is no philosophical position: the interest there is totally up to the desires of the participant.

You seem to have an irrational view of charities. If people are voluntarily contributing to an organization that is not using the money for immoral purposes, then that is good and you need not avoid working for the charity.

I find nothing wrong with your reasoning. And if you choose to feed the man as another human being and valuing life, as opposed to acting out of duty, then you are acting morally.

Granted, but not 6 pages of discussion to point out such rationalization - or a single concept.

I couldn't agree more. I have often seen in these forums a need for people to rationalize to support their non-objective views. It is time for that to stop and truly attempt to learn Objectivism.

No, he found a flaw in himself. When he went to the Fed, he was flawed. He has never explained what does not work in the free market.

Peikoff and a few others have indeed done much of what you suggest. The forums for making philosophical arguments are limited, and that is needed if the practical consequences of adhering to Obj. are to be fully understood. Good point. Obj.ists have to first practice it consistently, thus showing their friends and acquaintances what it is truly like to be rational/moral and how that translates to politics. Also, there are few who truly grasp Obj. fully, but there are many who are capable of convincing others of its strong points. It needs more rational people being exposed. And those are not the people who are likely to go to Ivy league schools.

I would expect that intelligent people already know of Rand. That does not make them rational people, thus not necessarily pro-Rand. Until Rand's morality takes better hold, our culture will not change for the better and us pro-Rand "intelligent" people will have to be satisfied with focusing on our own lives and on how to cope with the Statist trend.

Dealing with Reality requires a sufficient amount of "intelligence" but, more importantly, a commitment to reason and a high level of rationality. It is the use of one's intelligence that is key here.

Final response. You don't need all the quotes. Never said disprove. Ch.5: "One can demonstrate that the idea of God contradicts all the fundamentals of a rational philosophy. Thanks to such a process of integration, what was initially arbitrary attains cognitive status—in this instance, as a falsehood."

Find a quote! Otherwise, enough has been said. When all evidence says no God, one can conclude no God - as God is defined. The fact that "God" is irrationally defined makes the conclusion easier to make; i.e. an arbitrary & philosophically contradictiory concept is necessarily referring to a non-existent. Again, I can rationally believe (thus conclude) there is no God while I cannot prove so. The only alternatives are believing there is or not being sure.

There is only 1 difference in our views. To me, the lack of evidence that leads to rejection should also lead to a conclusion that there is no God. Again,that is not saying that God is dis-proved. There are a lot of things (X)that I cannot prove (beyond negatives), but the lack of evidence still leaves me to conclude that X does not exist. Objectivism denies a God, thus concludes there is none.

First statement - exactly. Yet you appear to be taking that position. Second - we are not talking about "no basis." All evidence points to the non-existence of a God.

Yes, you are correct of course. I was responding to what I understood to be a statement about man's actions, not his nature. And man's actions and his rationality are not automatic.