The Flaw in Objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
1

I have read all of Ayn Rand’s novels..

She stops short in most of them, She doesn’t reach her own point.

Ayn Rand proclaims herself to be an Atheist. That is what Saves Rand from True Godlessness.

IF YOU CAN FIND THE ABSOLUTE UTTER LACK OF GOD IN RAND’S WORKS.

A PERSONS WHO HAS TRULY COME TO A CONCEPT OF “UTTER LACK OF GOD.”

WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION , “Are you an Athiest?”, By replying , “NO!”

Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept.

Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand’s Work, why?? Because of the flaw that Ayn Rand introduced by proclaiming herself to be an Athiest.

If Rand had gotten to TRUE GODLESSNESS, She would have also proclaimed that she wasn’t an Athiest also.

Ayn Rand was an Athiest. She had God in that tiniest sense.

Both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have God in them, in the barest essence in their Atheism. Which is why there for a time Objectivists started trying to Integrate a Notion of God into Objectivism. Well it is there in Rand’s Athiesm itself.

Rand’s Mere Athiesm is one step short of TRUE GODLESSNESS.

The opposite attempt is to Rid Objectivism of God altogether by comming to an “UTTER LACK OF GOD” which will destroy Atheism itself.

Objectivism has God in it, in the narrowest sense, in the smallest amount.

And that is as far as Rand could go philosophically.

If she had gone further she would have found herself stairing at the Ultimate Question.

Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn’t deny God’s existence at all. Which is what has objectivists seeking an integrated notion of Objectivism and God.

Which is what will ultimately save Objectivism itself.

Objectivism cannot survive without God…

It is interesting that it takes a flaw in Objectivism to keep it viable to people as a system of thinking.

Christ puts no stipulation on the socio-economic model that man lives in.

Which is why also that man can live with Communism for 80+ years also.

Christ will allow man to exist in a purely Capitalistic Society as much as he will allow man to exist in a Purely Communist

Society.

To abandon God because you want Capitalism is erroneous thinking also.

To abandon God because some men will not let you have a purely Capitalistic Society, is flawed thinking as well.

You think that people would abandon those people and not Abandon God, but nope.. That guy over their voted me into

Socialism, I think I will abandon God in retaliation, Just doesn’t make any sense.

So Rand’s fit started about Communists and rightfully so, she was powerless about that and chose atheism instead.

But Christ is left Scratching his head because Jesus Christ never told Ayn Rand that she wasn’t allowed to make any money

or to Own Property, ie, That Trading powerhouse, The House of Hurr.

So perhaps it is possible to live in a Capitalist world and not abandon God also, seems possible to myself.

Just as it is possible, to feed the homeless around here without a Communist’s Makorov Pistol to your head also.

2

"Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand’s Work, "

Lolwut? I have no idea where you got that notion from. One cannot be religious and an Objectivist, so if they are looking for a deity in Rand’s works, as in, some proof of it or support of it or whatever, then they are religious it would seem and thus, not Objectivists.

Also, deities and any other so-called “supernatural” phenomenon is regarded as not genuine concepts anyway as they do not reference anything in reality and do not even have properly formed definitions. The words are only still used to refer to this crappy conglomeration of fuzzy notions many other people cling to for communication purposes. One couldn’t exactly explain problems in theistic beliefs if they couldn’t even mention any of the supposed things that they are trying to debunk for example.

“Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn’t deny God’s existence at all.”

This statement is a flat out contradiction. The denial of existence of any so called deities, of which the Christian’s ill formed version is often called “God” with a capital “G”, is the very nature of atheism basically.

3

Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept.

:confused: What the hell? I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Are you trying to say that if she truly refused to consider the possibility of God that the issue of whether or not he existed would not come up? And/or that if one was truly an athiest ( i.e. only truly believes that God does not exist) that atheism would not exist? This seems sort of stupid.

A concept is a mental integration of facts into a mental unit used to refer to a certain class of entities, grouped according to their common characteristics and according to a specific definition. Atheism refers to any theory/belief with the essential characeristic that it denies the existence of God ( or any other deities). Are you saying that anyone that believes this obliterates the concept , even though the concept simply refers to a fact? I dont get it at all..

4

:confused: What the hell? I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Are you trying to say that if she truly refused to consider the possibility of God that the issue of whether or not he existed would not come up? And/or that if one was truly an athiest ( i.e. only truly believes that God does not exist) that atheism would not exist? This seems sort of stupid.

A concept is a mental integration of facts into a mental unit used to refer to a certain class of entities, grouped according to their common characteristics and according to a specific definition. Atheism refers to any theory/belief with the essential characeristic that it denies the existence of God ( or any other deities). Are you saying that anyone that believes this obliterates the concept , even though the concept simply refers to a fact? I dont get it at all..

Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Doesn’t believe in GOD!) That doesn’t cause God’s Non-existence.

Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Only Truly Believes that God Does not Exist) That does not cause God’s Non-existence either.

Hence my point stands , UTTER LACK OF GOD (God’s actual NON-existence) deny’s the possibility of Atheism’s existence as a result. and So therefore Rand wasn’t truly Godless merely Athiest. God existed and Rand merely Chose to not-Believe in God. Or God existed and Rand (using your words) Merey TRULY BELIEVES THAT GOD DOESN’T EXIST;

and Rand wasn’t Godless merely Athiest.

If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that, because

it takes a BELIEF about a NOn-existent Object to come up with a concept of a Belief in a Non-existent Object, which it is irrational to formalize a concept for something

that doesn’t exist if it doesn’t exist.

You quickly get to a reductio ad infinitum with God always existing..

5

“UTTER LACK OF GOD (God’s actual NON-existence) deny’s the possibility of Atheism’s existence as a result”

This begs the question by assuming the truth of what it is trying to prove - that there exists some entity which you call “god” that made/runs/whatever existence.

“If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that”

Atheists didn’t invent this whacky “god” idea, other people did. We just as atheists comment “that god thingy you claim exists - you’re wrong.”

6

"Many Objectivists have turned to trying to find GOD in Rand’s Work, "

Lolwut? I have no idea where you got that notion from. One cannot be religious and an Objectivist, so if they are looking for a deity in Rand’s works, as in, some proof of it or support of it or whatever, then they are religious it would seem and thus, not Objectivists.

Also, deities and any other so-called “supernatural” phenomenon is regarded as not genuine concepts anyway as they do not reference anything in reality and do not even have properly formed definitions. The words are only still used to refer to this crappy conglomeration of fuzzy notions many other people cling to for communication purposes. One couldn’t exactly explain problems in theistic beliefs if they couldn’t even mention any of the supposed things that they are trying to debunk for example.

“Ayn Rand in her Athiesm doesn’t deny God’s existence at all.”

This statement is a flat out contradiction. The denial of existence of any so called deities, of which the Christian’s ill formed version is often called “God” with a capital “G”, is the very nature of atheism basically.

My whole point is that Rand saves her religiousity by being merely Athiest..

My further point is that Objectivist cannot exist without Rand’s religiousity as Rand has it, Rand merely being Athiest isn’t Godless, hence Rand’s work absolutely depends on Rand not actually quantifying a Universe where God is Non-existent. Rand’s universe merely has Athiesm, not Godlessness.

7

My whole point is that Rand saves her religiousity by being merely Athiest..

My further point is that Objectivist cannot exist without Rand’s religiousity as Rand has it, Rand merely being Athiest isn’t Godless, hence Rand’s work absolutely depends on Rand not actually quantifying a Universe where God is Non-existent. Rand’s universe merely has Athiesm, not Godlessness.

What religiosity? She does not believe in anything which other people call “supernatural.” “not actually quantifying a Universe where God is Non-existent” What do you mean by “quantifying” here? Also, Rand doesn’t have her own universe, she’s talking about this one, the one we’re all in, the only one there is.

8

Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Doesn’t believe in GOD!) That doesn’t cause God’s Non-existence.

Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Only Truly Believes that God Does not Exist) That does not cause God’s Non-existence either.

Hence my point stands , UTTER LACK OF GOD (God’s actual NON-existence) deny’s the possibility of Atheism’s existence as a result. and So therefore Rand wasn’t truly Godless merely Athiest. God existed and Rand merely Chose to not-Believe in God. Or God existed and Rand (using your words) Merey TRULY BELIEVES THAT GOD DOESN’T EXIST;

and Rand wasn’t Godless merely Athiest.

If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that, because

it takes a BELIEF about a NOn-existent Object to come up with a concept of a Belief in a Non-existent Object, which it is irrational to formalize a concept for something

that doesn’t exist if it doesn’t exist.

You quickly get to a reductio ad infinitum with God always existing..

You are not making any sense at all. Atheism refers to the belief/conviction ( comprehensively thought out or otherwise) that deities do not exist. It refers to a *FACT* that people do not believe in the existence of deities. The concept exists because the idea of deities exists and is common knowledge in our culture. There are three choices given this inescapable fact :

A) Believe that they do exist regardless of any evidence for the fact and regardless of the fact that the notion of deities is contradictory.

BB) Refuse to come to a definite conclusion .

C) Come to the conclusion that deities cannot possibly exist.

Atheism refers to the third alternative. It is not true that a “true” atheist would refuse to form the concept of atheism in the first place, even though the concept refers to the belief that they do in fact subscribe to. If they refuse to accept the existence of gods, then they refuse to accept the existence of gods and they are atheists. Valid concepts refer to facts, and the fact atheism refers to is the refusal to accept the existence of gods. Nothing changes that, not even your little word games.

The basis for the concept of atheism is the fact that some people refuse to accept that deities exist , despite the fact that other people assert that they do exist. This is all that is required for the valid concept of atheism to exist and for a logically valid reason.

9

If unicorns are actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as the nonexistence of unicorns because he has no basis for that, because

it takes a BELIEF about a NOn-existent Object to come up with a concept of a Belief in a Non-existent Object, which it is irrational to formalize a concept for something

that doesn’t exist if it doesn’t exist.

You quickly get to a reductio ad infinitum with unicorns always existing..

Hooray, unicorns exist!

3 Likes
10

“UTTER LACK OF GOD (God’s actual NON-existence) deny’s the possibility of Atheism’s existence as a result”

This begs the question by assuming the truth of what it is trying to prove - that there exists some entity which you call “god” that made/runs/whatever existence.

“If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that”

Atheists didn’t invent this whacky “god” idea, other people did. We just as atheists comment “that god thingy you claim exists - you’re wrong.”

Lets not deal with ownership right now, and merely talk the concept itself.

If you are certain that GOD has an absolute Non-existence then you can’t derive a definition for any notion of a Concept that has Belief as its definition about

that non-existent object in this case GOD.

So lets start at the beginning..

God… Doesn’t exist.

well GOD..

GOD, “Well I don’t know..”

NOTJOHNGALT?, “You don’t exist.”

GOD, “I KNOW..”

NOTJOHNGALT?, 'What should we do??"

GOD, “I AM WORKING ON IT!”

NOTJOHNGALT?, “Please hurry!!”

11

Hooray, unicorns exist!

Hooray!!! I was thinking about the other day..

12

Lets not deal with ownership right now, and merely talk the concept itself.

If you are certain that GOD has an absolute Non-existence then you can’t derive a definition for any notion of a Concept that has Belief as its definition about

that non-existent object in this case GOD.

…

NOTJOHNGALT?, “Please hurry!!”

Except that people are able to imagine the existence of things that do not actually exist and other people are able to recognize that the alleged existence of such beings is an invalid claim and that the alleged entities do not in fact exist. In the case of claims that deities existence, that denial is “atheism”.

13

You are not making any sense at all. Atheism refers to the belief/conviction ( comprehensively thought out or otherwise) that deities do not exist. It refers to a *FACT* that people do not believe in the existence of deities. The concept exists because the idea of deities exists and is common knowledge in our culture. There are three choices given this inescapable fact :

A) Believe that they do exist regardless of any evidence for the fact and regardless of the fact that the notion of deities is contradictory.

BB) Refuse to come to a definite conclusion .

C) Come to the conclusion that deities cannot possibly exist.

Atheism refers to the third alternative. It is not true that a “true” atheist would refuse to form the concept of atheism in the first place, even though the concept refers to the belief that they do in fact subscribe to. If they refuse to accept the existence of gods, then they refuse to accept the existence of gods and they are atheists. Valid concepts refer to facts, and the fact atheism refers to is the refusal to accept the existence of gods. Nothing changes that, not even your little word games.

The basis for the concept of atheism is the fact that some people refuse to accept that deities exist , despite the fact that other people assert that they do exist. This is all that is required for the valid concept of atheism to exist and for a logically valid reason.

Non belief in God does nothing to God’s existence.

Existence or Non-existence must come first. Belief can only come afterwards.

But belief cannot cause something to exist or not exist..

SO GOD!!<----- there it is again..

Objectivist, “we don’t believe that..”

GOD<----there it is again..

Objectivist, “We still don’t believe that..”

The basis for the concept of atheism is the fact that some people refuse to accept that deities exist , despite the fact that other people assert that they do exist. This is all that is required for the valid concept of atheism to exist and for a logically valid reason.

All I am saying is that if GOD doesn’t exist, then you can’t get to a concept of Athiesm..

If God is truly non-existent then no one would claim that God exists and Athiesm ceases to exist. Is all I am saying.

In other words In a Godless universe, there is not such word as God, hence Athiesm never exists..

14

Non belief in God does nothing to God’s existence.

Existence or Non-existence must come first. Belief can only come afterwards.

But belief cannot cause something to exist or not exist..

SO GOD!!<----- there it is again..

Objectivist, “we don’t believe that..”

GOD<----there it is again..

Objectivist, “We still don’t believe that..”

True, belief in something or otherwise does not change whether or not it exists. It does or does not, regardless of what anyone this.

But atheism is not about believing in something and hence causing it not to exist. It is simply believing that it does not.

All I am saying is that if GOD doesn’t exist, then you can’t get to a concept of Athiesm..

If God is truly non-existent then no one would claim that God exists and Athiesm ceases to exist. Is all I am saying.

Except that I have already proven/demonstrated that you can g et to that concept, ie by forming a concept which refers to the fact that some people do not believe that deities exist. Also, just because something does not exist does not mean that someone cannot imagine that it does and then claim that it does. Lucas conceived of Darth Vadar, by your logic that means he must exist. Talk about reductio ad absurdum..

15

Lets not deal with ownership right now, and merely talk the concept itself.

If you are certain that GOD has an absolute Non-existence then you can’t derive a definition for any notion of a Concept that has Belief as its definition about

that non-existent object in this case GOD.

You started the “ownership” issue in the first post of this thread.

“God” does not have non-existence - it doesn’t have anything at all because it doesn’t exist. “God” is just the name slapped onto some made up arrangements of words other people (who we call theists) have. Theists believe in this hodgepodge of words which they call “god” actually referring to something real. Atheists simply say we think the beliefs of theists are incorrect, that this “god” mess isn’t real. It’s like how paraplegic refers to people who lack something other people have - in this case of paraplegics, limbs.

16

If God is truly non-existent then no one would claim that God exists and Athiesm ceases to exist. Is all I am saying.

As I was trying to point out with my somewhat facetious unicorn post, this argument proves too much. If it were valid, it would also prove the existence of every mythical entity in which humans have ever believed.

17

Except that people are able to imagine the existence of things that do not actually exist and other people are able to recognize that the alleged existence of such beings is an invalid claim and that the alleged entities do not in fact exist. In the case of claims that deities existence, that denial is “atheism”.

Yes but what if your entity is GOD..

Entity EGG exists?? how??

Why did lightning in the primoridial ooze create amino acids??? WHY??? Why Amino Acids??

Couldn’t it have created like hardened carbon with one less oxygen molecule or something, why did it create Amino Acids??

18

Yes but what if your entity is GOD..

Entity EGG exists?? how??

Why did lightning in the primoridial ooze create amino acids??? WHY??? Why Amino Acids??

Couldn’t it have created like hardened carbon with one less oxygen molecule or something, why did it create Amino Acids??

I’m sure there are many chemists who can tell you why lightning + this particular ooze =/= hardened carbon. Try asking a chemist some time about the nature of the substances involved and how they work.

19

Yes but what if your entity is GOD..

Entity EGG exists?? how??

Why did lightning in the primoridial ooze create amino acids??? WHY??? Why Amino Acids??

Couldn’t it have created like hardened carbon with one less oxygen molecule or something, why did it create Amino Acids??

You are not making any sense. It is almost as if you have never heard of logic before.

I might as well imagine what would happen if my “entity was a pink toaster with one million legs and light-sabers for arms”.

Speculating about what might have happened in the primordial ooze is not an argument and is rather pointless in this ( or almost any other ) context.

20

What religiosity? She does not believe in anything which other people call “supernatural.” “not actually quantifying a Universe where God is Non-existent” What do you mean by “quantifying” here? Also, Rand doesn’t have her own universe, she’s talking about this one, the one we’re all in, the only one there is.

Not Believing doesn’t create NON-Existence.. Rand’s Athiesm never denies God’s existence. merely deals with her belief in his non-existence. Which still doesn’t

create God’s actual Non-existence merely Rand’s Atheism.

YEs one Universe, which Rand was only Athiest in, So God was in Rand’s universe also, hence Rand’s Atheism makes God in Rand’s universe absolutely necessary.

Hence my assertion that Objectivism nor Rand can survive without her Athiesm nor the God that Rand’s Atheism need to exist for there to be a Non-Belief in God.

In order for Objectivists to Not Believe in God, God must stand there and let Objectivists not believe in himself.

Is this a Trick?? NO..

I spent years as an Objectivist back in the early 90’s.. I like alot of what Rand has to say about society. I think rand is right in alot of ways, but her Athiesm is the flaw in her work, and in fact one which must stay in her work if it is to survive, because you see God is still in Rand’s work, even marginally. And in fact that Rand’s work will dissapear without God.