Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dakota

Regulars
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from eficazpensador in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  2. Like
    dakota got a reaction from 0096 2251 2110 8105 in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  3. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from CapitalistSwine in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  4. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from ttime in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  5. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from bluecherry in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  6. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from Xall in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  7. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from dream_weaver in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  8. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from Dante in Can Objectivists be religious?   
    Actually, Rand wrote in her diary, when she was thirteen years old, that she wanted to be known as the greatest enemy of religion. So it's reasonable to think of Objectivism as her attempt to validate a philosophical system that has the ethical objectivity of religious belief without a god. Her atheism preceded her philosophical system.

    So no, you can't be a religious Objectivist because atheism is the founding premise.
  9. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from Tanaka in How far is too far?   
    I taught at the High School level for a few years -- maybe that's why. However, some teens can and do make good choices, as I saw time and time again. Nevertheless, they are not self-sufficent and thus do not bear any of the responsibilities of providing food, shelter, education, clothing,....on and on and on. Therefore, as hard as it is for a young person to accept, their parents are the ultimate authority and until they are providing for themselves they ought to respect that authority regardless of whether they agree or disagree.



    Not if they are in conflict with the wishes of one's parents. They're paying the bills and are legally responsible for you -- you can indulge your thoughts and feelings, if they are in conflict with your parrents, when you're not living off of them.
  10. Like
    dakota got a reaction from ttime in How far is too far?   
    I taught at the High School level for a few years -- maybe that's why. However, some teens can and do make good choices, as I saw time and time again. Nevertheless, they are not self-sufficent and thus do not bear any of the responsibilities of providing food, shelter, education, clothing,....on and on and on. Therefore, as hard as it is for a young person to accept, their parents are the ultimate authority and until they are providing for themselves they ought to respect that authority regardless of whether they agree or disagree.



    Not if they are in conflict with the wishes of one's parents. They're paying the bills and are legally responsible for you -- you can indulge your thoughts and feelings, if they are in conflict with your parrents, when you're not living off of them.
  11. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from 2046 in Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians   
    I never suggested that people's existence tells us of the truth or falsehood of their beliefs. Again, it does tell us that your opinions are not universal, and so perhaps you have failed to demonstrate them in a scientifically conclusive manner.



    Agreed. And it is true of your opinions as well. If, as you say, "All "theological" question about human values can be answered scientifically, and all other questions commonly thought to be "theological" refer to things which do not exist", then scientifically verifiable proof of this must exist. However, despite my years of acquaintance with scientists of various disciplines (many of whom were quite interested in philosophy and questions of this nature), and with the scientific community in general, I have yet to see this utterly conclusive, world-changing scientific fact demonstrated, and the consenus that it has been demonstrated is remarkably absent.
  12. Downvote
    dakota got a reaction from Tanaka in Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians   
    I never suggested causality, nor even correlation. I simply made the observation that, as religious scientists demonstrate, there can be peaceful coexistence between sceince and theology.



    I don't think anyone has suggested that it would be better. I don't think it has made any difference.



    So you don't admire the scientists mentioned, despite their very admirable acheivements?
×
×
  • Create New...