http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
http://www.conservapedia.com/Objectivism
The guy who owned this site was posting it on a lot of atheist websites last week. I saw it, checked it out and noticed how biased it was. The article on Objectivism is very skewed as well, from what little I read. But I figured this was relevent to everyone’s interests, so I posted it.
This makes blood shoot out of my eyes. :dough:
Ye Gods! Quoting Nathaniel Branden as an authority on Objectivism.
I couldn’t even make it through the Atheism article.
This is what you get from " Conservatives ". I am not shocked.
What’s your question about it?
“Are these guys morons?” ?
This makes blood shoot out of my eyes. :dough:
Awesome. Like a horned toad.
Fortunately, I still perceive that the unintentionally hilarious Conservapedia is not taken seriously outside of Christian Revisionists like David Barton and Republican attack dogs such as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, that is still too many people.
Ye Gods! Quoting Nathaniel Branden as an authority on Objectivism.
I couldn’t even make it through the Atheism article.
My point exactly! I seriously thought this guy lost any shred of credibility for his entire site when he used Branden in the context he did.
Also, Darkwaters beat me to the punch. Well, I forgot to say it but, yeah, I think this is the Ann Coulter-type. Seriously, they used Barry Whittacker to discredit Rand, Barry being a Coulter’s favorite author.
Oh yeah and Tenure, the reason I posted this was just to show everyone and wonder if I wasn’t the only one who thought it was bullshit. :dough:
Also general comments and flaming rhetoric are always welcome!
Edit: “Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God’s existence” – Just wanted to make special note of that.
Sheesh. With people like these idiots running their movement, it’s no wonder that modern Conservatism is in such a state of ruin.
The site also states AS FACT that Jesus is the son of God:
“This includes God, a Concept that almost no Objectivist has ever accepted.” Lol, more like no Objectivist full stop.
“This might be Objectivism’s greatest weakness: that it will not admit that which one cannot perceive directly, but which has affected something else that one perceives, and that in a measurable way.” More like one of its greatest strengths. As we all know, that which we cannot perceive is not something we should believe in.
“But they feared censorship even more…” No, it is a disaproval, not a fear.
“The encouragement of its students to repress all emotion as somehow unworthy, all in the name of being proactive rather than reactive.” While Branden may of said that, that is not what Rand was advocating. In fact she advocated that emotions can be rational responses and at times no emotional response is irrational. What Rand really said was not to let emotion guide you, to let reason guide you. That is not the same as saying to supress all emotion.
“A dogmatic, inflexible approach to philosophy and its various disciplines, leading to the inability to forgive a mistake in philosophical formulation or application.” Another completely untrue statement by Branden about Rand and Objectivism (not surprising is it?). You need look no further than her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for proof that Branden is wrong. Roark forgave Dominique for her philosophical error of thinking good could not defeat evil because evil is too strong. Galt forgave Dagny for her philosophical error of thinking there was something in her world worth staying for, for thinking it was worth trying to defeat them. Furthermore, Objectivism is not dogmatic. It sets down no rules on how to live.
“Can Objectivism develop further? This question is debatable. Many students of Objectivism are not likely to admit that Ayn Rand’s original system had any flaws.” Actually, it isn’t debatable and whether or not the ideas are flawed is beside the point. It is a closed system, so it cannot develop further.
“Objectivism’s chief limitation appears to be the unwillingness of its adherents and formulators to consider that anything might exist outside of perceptual reality, that might nevertheless influence that reality.” This is simply repeating the first mistake that I quoted.
The above examples show a clear bias and lack of understand for the reasons I stated above. Sadly the one on athiesm is worse. It even goes so far as to claim that there is research that proves there was no Dark Ages and that period actually had rapid technological development! That is an outright lie.
“This might be Objectivism’s greatest weakness: that it will not admit that which one cannot perceive directly, but which has affected something else that one perceives, and that in a measurable way.” More like one of its greatest strengths. As we all know, that which we cannot perceive is not something we should believe in.
Actually, we do know that certain things exist, even though we do not perceive them, but only perceive their effect on something else.
They are making it seem like Objectivism uses the objection one might give to a child: “we can’t see God, so he couldn’t exist”. Of course, such an objection is easy to refute; that is why they use it as their straw-man.
Actually, we do know that certain things exist, even though we do not perceive them, but only perceive their effect on something else.
They are making it seem like Objectivism uses the objection one might give to a child: “we can’t see God, so he couldn’t exist”. Of course, such an objection is easy to refute; that is why they use it as their straw-man.
Ok, I stand corrected. That is the thing about being a student of Objectivism, you make mistakes like that sometimes. 
“This includes God, a Concept that almost no Objectivist has ever accepted.” Lol, more like no Objectivist full stop.
You say that, but there are Christian Objectivists, I shit you not.
You say that, but there are Christian Objectivists, I shit you not.
Well, they are not actually Objectivists.
You say that, but there are Christian Objectivists, I shit you not.
Couldn’t get into either place without joining.
Have you joined?
I have not joined either one, but I can certainly read the Facebook one. I’ll copy the text here. And yes, I’m aware they are not Objectivists in the official, or any, sense, but they do clarify themselves as “Students of Objectivism”, and I think that’s enough to at least warrant Kane’s attention, since he didn’t seem to be aware of these people.
Christians in the School of Objectivism
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism: …that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or “rational self-interest;” that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form - a work of art - that one can apprehend and respond to with the whole of one’s consciousness…
Most simply stated, this is a group for those who embrace nearly all of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism, but find fault in her atheistic slant on religion, principally regarding Christianity; this is a group for those who readily identify with the plights of John Galt, Dagny Taggart, and Howard Roark, and agree in their assigned value of the able individual, yet cannot subscribe completely to their personas because of their subsequent denial of God as a result of the glorification of that individual; this is a group for Christians who, in a world filled with idleness, bureaucracy, over-indulgent welfare systems, and looting, want to stand up and fulfill their obligation as being a most capable, productive, and momentous individual, as the Lord gave ALL of us the POTENTIAL to be; and finally, this is a group for those who are seeking the truth wherever it may be found: let them know that it may be found in God’s word.
Gen. 1: 21 “So God created humankind in his image…"’
1st Cor. 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…"
From the Latter-day Saint theology:
2 Nephi. 2:25 “Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy.”
Moses 1:39 “For behold, this is my work and my glory— to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas Five Ways:
…that God is not reliant on the world and the universe, for God’s existence. However, the world and the universe are reliant on God for theirs…
Galt states “I am." As the Christians in the School of Objectivism, we state “I am, because of God." From under this umbrella axiom stems our beliefs on a wide range of issues, including but certainly not limited to:
The downfall of the socialist state
The necessity of economic incentive for all work
The importance of self-reliance as a member of human society, but the reliance on God for the preservation of our souls
And
God’s gift of our minds’ talents, and our natural ability
The use of our abilities to glorify God, over ourselves
Heeding God’s calling in one’s life
CCO Charter:
Let us come together for the common purposes of
-Discussing and debating Ayn Rand’s secular philosophy, and its impact on our religious lives
-Reassessing our role in society as Christian leaders
-Evaluating and discussing the current states of affairs of our world, especially in regards to religion’s role in the way societies are now governed (non-partisan topic)
-Further understanding and exploring the possibilities that God has set before us as his beloved children in regards to our individual roles in society, government, daily life, and the economy
-Providing general support as brothers and sisters in one faith, amidst an increasingly hostile secular world
With these goals or purposes in mind, group membership is by invitation only. We as members are not here to debate these most basic truths, but to discuss further and more deeply their application(s). Those who wish to debate the existence of God can do so in another environment. That is not debatable here.
Looks like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Seriously, why the hell would you remain Christian after reading so much of Rand? It’s pretty obvious that Objectivism contradicts Christianity.
Maybe they believe in Objectivist Jesus?
Maybe they believe in Objectivist Jesus?
Ha ha ha ha ha! Now that’s my kind of savior!
Maybe they believe in Objectivist Jesus?
The picture is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.
Dan
Woah, crazy stuff there. However sadly I cannot honestly say I have not heard a lot of this crap before.
Tenure, I would have to say that a Christian Objectivist is contradiction in terms. I do not see that anyone should be considering themselves a Christian Objectivist, or that anyone deserves to be considered as such. What you describe are more like religious want-to-be Objectivists. But in disagreeing with such fundamental issues as they are bound to eventually recant on their [professed] belief in the rest. At least that is my experience.