Truthseeker

Make fun of me all you want. However, realize that people who utilize your line of "rational thinking" once thought the earth was flat. Then someone came along who was open to all ideas.

Well then you better go back and do some more mental work (I have also seen many other articles and stories on the subject): http://www.mcg.edu/news/2003NewsRel/meditation.html I really thought I could have a rational discussion in here. Instead, I found out that religious fanatics who call themselves “Objectivists” populate the board. People who have just as closed a mind as a Jehovah Witness, yet turn their nose up at anyone who does not share their "religion." Your statement on the futility of meditation was a real eye opener for me. Someone who thinks rationally must be open to all ideas until they are proven to be false, otherwise one is no better than someone who fanatically believes in a religion with no rational basis.

Where did I suggest that Einstein did possess some mystical faculty of revelation? Once again you are reading more into my words than is there. You realize that your responses to any discussion that mentions religion appear to be preconceived from all of you. I am suggesting that the act of meditation may allow the mind to function at a higher subconscious level, which in turn enables it to compute and digest information subconsciously (kind of like running a complex computation on a computer with the monitor off.) I am not suggesting that Einstein did such a thing. However, it is possible that his intuitions where due to similar processes. Not all that mystical in my book.

I have three quotes from Einstein. I have not studied his life as you claim to have. But I have a hard time believing intuition never played a role in Einstein's discoveries based on these quotes. You are welcome to show me how I am wrong. “The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will and the solution comes to you and you don't know why .All great discoveries are made that way”. A. Einstein “The really valuable thing is intuition.” A. Einstein “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is the faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” A. Einstein

Is not part of Objectivism the rejection of Religion? If so, is it not rational to explore what religion is and why it should or should not be rejected?

I am not comparing Christianity to Objectivism. What I am saying that it is possible that what Jesus actually taught might have been about self-discovery and self-reliance, which is a hypothesis, based on alternative examinations of early Christian literature and therefore, fodder for a discussion with a radical Christian who thinks they "know." Moreover, I wrote about Zen Buddhism and its path to self-discovery through meditation and intuition, nothing more. Perhaps everyone in here should step back a moment and realize you are guilty of coloring my words with your own preconceived notions. In other words, everyone who has responded to my initial post is reading far more into it than what the words actually say. With regards to Newton: http://courses.unt.edu/rdecarvalho/h5040/S...3%2CMichael.htm I do not have the book so I needed to rely on an internet search. Lastly, what I was saying about both Christianity and Occultism is that they are both gravely misrepresented in popular culture. Christianity is as hard to really define as any religion and since it has been so perverted through more than a millennia of manipulation, it is even harder to define and the same can be said for Occultism. Nevertheless, there is more than enough evidence to definitively state aspects of modern science grew out of Occultism and like Christianity, what most people think of when they think of Occultism is not really what it was in its true sense. That is why I posted the link to sacred geometry.

Why are you lecturing me?

Don't reason and logic come from thought? Isn't intuition the product of bits of knowledge coming together simultaneous to bring out a new idea? Aren’t meditation (silent reflection) and an integral part of the thought process? Is it not a proven fact that we do not know what the brain in its entirety does? Is it not possible that meditation allows unknown parts of the brain to process information and generate intuitive knowledge? Enlightenment is by definition education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge. Zen meditation's purpose is for the discovery of one's self and not a mystical and arbitrary concept.

The main portion and theme of my writing was a historical perspective of 1200 years of authoritarian enslavement based on a lie. That is not simply about religion. Perhaps you and I have differing interpretations on the purpose of meditation and intuition. To me meditation and intuition enables a person to pull things together and develop a rational conclusion. These are tools to achieve an end and may not necessarily be religious or metaphysical in nature (Einstein used them quite well.) As far as the story of Isaac Newton goes, I have based my statements on a book I read a few years ago entitled "Newton The Last Sorcerer." You misunderstand the post if you feel I am melding anything. My post is just an examination of my historical perspective and how I see Objectivism in relationship to that historical perspective. Consequently, it is an historical perspective that is quite antithetical to any religious extremism.

Thanks for the insight.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB5AA2T9ZD.html I wasn't sure where to post this amazing story of just how whacked out some people are.

I posted a version of this earlier and it seems to have disappeared. Perhaps I posted it wrong. This is my historical perspective on Christianity from a rational look at my knowledge of it. I am not attempting to preach Christianity, I am attempting to show how the authoritarianism of the Christian suppressed reason and that suppression began to unravel with the Renaissance and progressively decayed up until the founding of the United States. The foundation of the United States was the culmination of the Age of Reason and in my opinion the highest achievement of man to date, for, for the first time man was as free as he was intended to be. (If one desires to debate a radical Christian, there is much historical knowledge that you can use against them in order to poke holes in their fanaticism and the world needs much less fanaticism and many more rational thinkers.) Looking closer at Christianity, no one can definitively define what it truly is. Taken as a whole, the term Christianity describes thousands of sects filled with people who do not agree on many things. The roots of modern Christianity can be traced back to the year 323AD and the Council of Nicea. At the council, Constantine the Great forced the codification of the official state religion. Christianity remained the European official state religion until 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the Door of the Castle Church. That action sparked a long overdue reformation of the church. Hence the protestant reformation was born and with it the seeds for the Renaissance and Age of Reason were sown. Throughout this time, occultists kept a semblance of the old rational knowledge alive. These occultists were heavily persecuted at times and kept much secret. However, from occultism came modern science. Today, the term occult evokes images of hocus pocus mysticism (something that should be attributed to the church's attempt at suppressing knowledge.) I also believe that psuedo occultists added to this by injecting into the discipline of science mumbo jumbo to make it appear, as they were magicians. One fascinating side bar to this story is Sir Isaac Newton, a brilliant rationalist who is credited to giving birth to modern science. Newton was a mad occultist and spent endless hours pursuing Alchemy. It was only after his pursuit of Alchemy that Newton made his most profound discoveries. Ironically, it was brilliant minds such as Newton that for the first time in many hundreds of years mysticism was de-emphasized and reason came to reign supreme. Part of occult knowledge is sacred geometry, which is a fascinating science that is based on math found throughout the natural world. http://www.intent.com/sg/ If one studies these topics with a logical and rational approach, one realizes that as in all things nothing is as it first appears. Going back to the year 325AD, one will discover that many books were left out of the bible and many differing views on Christianity were suppressed the future followers of these views were persecuted, tortured and killed. Nothing was more important during these 1200 years than the power of the Church. The Church of Rome controlled all aspects of life from Kings to paupers. They were a repressive authoritarian state and controlled most of Europe even well up into modern times. What was lost? I have come to believe that Christianity at one time was far closer to Zen Buddhism than any other religion. Christ used to say that he was the son of the lord. What I believe the church disguised that he really meant it in a figurative sense and that he believed anyone could become like him. In a way it is quite Objectivist. You control your own destiny through free will. Zen Buddhism is based on the belief that enlightenment can come through meditation and intuition rather than faith. In other words, each one of us is the only one who can bring happiness to ourselves. To quote Ayn Rand: I wonder what Jerry Farwell would say to this post? I am a believer that true Christianity is about taking responsibility for one's own life and making something out of yourself on your own terms and out of your own self-interest. I do believe that the European statists controlled and created what we believe to be Christianity, in order to enslave and exploit through the Divine Right of Kings and Popes. The underlying moral to this story is one of ultimate tragedy. It is that much knowledge was suppressed and many ideas were lost in that 1200-year enslavement by the Christian Church. Just imagine if we never went through the Dark Ages, how far advanced we would be as a society if all that ancient knowledge was not perverted through time and suppressed by authoritarians? It is also a lesson to all of us that the ultimate danger of authoritarianism is both very dangerous and potentially a devastating, long lasting and true crime against humanity. Therefore, it must always be fought aggressively.

Perhaps I have committed the sin of generalization. I have run into some hostility by people who labeled themselves "Objectivists" for my admission of being a deist and quite tolerable of most people who are religious. They were proselytizing their atheism to me. I mistook your words for the same thing and I apologize for it. It is my belief that you are treading on very dangerous ground in your interpretation of "Objectivism." The fundamental and most important value of "Objectivism" is true individual freedom as long as that freedom does not infringe on someone else’s. I quote Rand: Anyone can employ their version of "reason and logic" to legitimize the taking of another's freedom. That is authoritarianism and is not acceptable under the principles of Objectivism. A true free state only wields its power in defense of the freedom of its citizens or for its own self-interest against an outlaw nation. There is no room for authoritarianism in Objectivism. I would be most interested if you disagre with me on this. I was once wrong about Libertarianism. Perhaps I am wrong about Objectivism.

No particular reason I have used the small "o." Just kind of a typo. Moreover, I find it difficult to see the compatibility between true "Objectivism" and complete intolerance of people who hold a religious or deistical worldview. "Objectivism" is the rejection of authoritarianism and that should be inclusive of the rejection of atheistic authoritarianism. Should it not? What is the difference between the intolerance of radical Christians or Muslims and intolerance by atheists? Authoritarian Intolerance is authoritarian intolerance.

If you think that the LP is blatantly pro-capitalist, you need to dig further. Go to the Ayn Rand bookstore and by the book "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty." Additionaly, if you read the article I linked, you would also discover that the party was founded by and continues to accept people from all walks of life, including left wing radicals. I was a very big supporter of the party, until I started speaking with the party's leadership a few months ago and dug further because of it. Objectivism an Libertarianism are not compatible.

Thank you for the welcome. I understand and there is probably much common ground on "religion" between most “objectivists” and me I am not a big believer in "religion." I am a deist.

My evidence that they are left leaning is my personal experience with them. Consider for a moment that the ultimate goal of Communism is to do away with government and as I have discovered, it is the ultimate goal of many Libertarians. Many people in both of these groups feel that the ends justify the means. If you wish to read what Ayn Rand felt about this party, you may wish to visit the following website and read an interview of her regarding the party: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...us_libertarians Also consider the famous words of Ben Franklin: "Benjamin Franklin said democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." http://www.cortezjournal.com/archives/edit391.htm In other words, liberty cannot exist without a government protecting the rights of the minority.

I was a Libertarian, or at least I thought I was at one time. The war in Iraq and the party's platform against that war led me to dig deeper. I went to the Ayn Rand Institute and purchased a book and tape that examined the Libertarian party. What I discovered (and from my personal experience with some of the party's leadership backed it up) made me loath the party. I would rather vote for a communist than a libertarian (Rand once said the same thing.) The Libertarian party was founded by a bunch of left leaning hippies. They really do not have a rational platform. While many of their ideas are immensely appealing to someone who considers them self either a classical liberal or objectivist, I assure that these ideas are a facade of what really lies behind the party. The party, its leadership and many of its members are pure anarchists. Which makes them in way deceptive communists. They are for the destruction of governments and almost always it is the United States they target. When South Vietnam fell to the communists, many Libertarians cheered. They reveled in the destruction of the South Vietnamese government (ally to the US.) There was no reflection upon the murder, torture and utter loss of liberty that would follow. They were just happy for that brief shining moment that a government backed by the US fell. The party continues its ways today. I posted on one of the party's chat boards vociferously objecting to the party's taking part in the anti-war protests. I was not only appalled by their objection to the war, but also the fact that they would side against the United States with the leftist groups many of which are pure communist. I was thoroughly disgusted by the anti-US sentiment that ran rampant. I was even more horrified when they started to trash the Constitution. Do some digging and you will see the delight they take when something happens in Iraq. It is utterly perverse. Things aren't always as they appear. The Libertarian Party and its leadership want to see the destruction of the United States government and the imposition of what would amount to an anarcharistic corporate slave state void of liberty. Which would be far from the radical capitalism of Rand.

Hi everyone. My disillusionment with the Libertarian movement drove me to dig deeper. Fortunately for the Ayn Rand institute, I was able to fully comprehend the movement and I will no longer support them or their party. I cannot consider myself an Objectivist, for I do consider myself a bit of a deist as the founding fathers of our country were (the US). I am willing to debate this subject, yet I do expect tolerance for my individual reality and respect for my knowledge of the subject matter. I love to debate and have been accused of being a bit cocky.