Objectivism/Atheism


Recommended Posts

Up until a few days ago, I was pretty much convinced that most people that were not already atheists or at least agnostic - or at the very least having serious doubts about God and religion - probably were not ones that I would try to discuss Objectivism with in depth. Rand's fiction, absolutely - but I am usually very careful before jumping from discussing her novels to jumping into the philosophy. That is not to say I didn't think they were unworthy or anything - it has just been my experience that it has been hard to talk about Objectivism with those that are religious or have a belief in God or the supernatural. (A lot, no doubt, because I am still wet behind the ears in explaining it.)

I think I have made a mistake here; without out realizing it, I have been saying to myself that Objectivist principles declare that there is no God or supernatural.

My husband and I started discussing this the other night. The reason it came up is because our 18 year old son is reluctant to learn anything more about the philosophy. He has admitted that all three of us get a long a bit better since we have been studying it, and he has admitted that it has had some (to him) positive changes in our lives. He also agrees with a good bit of it regarding personal responsibility, not sacrificing yourself for others etc. However, we did something I think many people new to a subject they are excited about do: we ended up trying to shove him into it - and didn't take it slow, etc. So of course, that is one reason he is a bit adverse to it.

The other reason, which seems to be the biggest factor, is that he doesn't like the fact that it rules out any possibility of the supernatural or god. He is someone you could refer to as agnostic. Before I met my husband, I raised him as a single parent until he was almost 8 years old, and religion was a very very important part of our life. So although we have been out of it for 10 years, I am sure it wasn't easy on him.

Anyway - back to the conversation with my husband. He stated something that I don't think I really considered. He said that the REASON that Objectivists don't believe in God or the supernatural is because there is no PROOF that there is God or the supernatural. And that one that makes a study of the philosophy and understands it will truly take into consideration the facts, and come to the conclusion that there is NO proof that will support God on any kind of supernatural phenomena. And in fact if there ever were actual scientific proof that God did exist, than it would not be contrary to Objectivism because everything has to be based on objective reality and solid facts. It wouldn't change the philosophy.

(Not that either one of us thinks this will happen of course!)

I have been revisiting conversations in my head that I have had with my son over the last year about this subject. I need to come up with a way to express this to him that I do not believe in God or the supernatural because I do not believe there is proof to support it - but that while that has been my conclusion and most of our friends that study the philosophy it is NOT a reason to reject looking into the philosophy further. As I see it now (and please correct me here if I am mistaken) is that becoming an atheist can be the direct result of applying Objectivist principles.

He has read Anthem, The Fountainhead - he isn't interested in reading Atlas nor any of Ayn Rand's essays.

He is making an honest effort on his own to have his questions answered. He is currently taking a comparative religion class - which I think is a great idea. (Actually, I would love to take a class like that as well as a few philosophy classes because I find both religion and philosophy interesting in general.)

So my question here is do you have any advice on how I can convey this to him? I don't want to make the same mistake, and have him feel like I am shoving something down his throat. However, I also feel somewhat of an urgency for him to look deeper, and not just on the surface of the philosophy. I feel as though I have done him a great disservice, and am compelled to correct it as soon as possible - but the right way this time!

Any thoughts, advice, etc are appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherry:

"Actually, I would love to take a class like that as well as a few philosophy classes because I find both religion and philosophy interesting in general."

Do it, it will be the most direct way to show him that you are cool with what he is doing and you are interested in it to.

Sherry he is 18, be happy he is housebroken. Your husband raises a good question, smart man.

Ease off the gas with your son and start downshifting to a place where you can be transparent with him about your interest in religion and rationality and you are taking a course.

You could always ask him to sit in on his class, but that might be much to much lol.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is reported that Pierre-Simon Laplace, the great French scientist, astronomer and mathematician, presented one of his great books explaining the whole of the universe to Napoleon, and Napoleon mentioned to him that he had heard that the book had no mention of God in it.

Laplace replied, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”

-Ross Barlow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Up until a few days ago, I was pretty much convinced that most people that were not already atheists or at least agnostic - or at the very least having serious doubts about God and religion - probably were not ones that I would try to discuss Objectivism with in depth. Rand's fiction, absolutely - but I am usually very careful before jumping from discussing her novels to jumping into the philosophy. That is not to say I didn't think they were unworthy or anything - it has just been my experience that it has been hard to talk about Objectivism with those that are religious or have a belief in God or the supernatural. (A lot, no doubt, because I am still wet behind the ears in explaining it.)

I think I have made a mistake here; without out realizing it, I have been saying to myself that Objectivist principles declare that there is no God or supernatural.

My husband and I started discussing this the other night. The reason it came up is because our 18 year old son is reluctant to learn anything more about the philosophy. He has admitted that all three of us get a long a bit better since we have been studying it, and he has admitted that it has had some (to him) positive changes in our lives. He also agrees with a good bit of it regarding personal responsibility, not sacrificing yourself for others etc. However, we did something I think many people new to a subject they are excited about do: we ended up trying to shove him into it - and didn't take it slow, etc. So of course, that is one reason he is a bit adverse to it.

The other reason, which seems to be the biggest factor, is that he doesn't like the fact that it rules out any possibility of the supernatural or god. He is someone you could refer to as agnostic. Before I met my husband, I raised him as a single parent until he was almost 8 years old, and religion was a very very important part of our life. So although we have been out of it for 10 years, I am sure it wasn't easy on him.

Anyway - back to the conversation with my husband. He stated something that I don't think I really considered. He said that the REASON that Objectivists don't believe in God or the supernatural is because there is no PROOF that there is God or the supernatural. And that one that makes a study of the philosophy and understands it will truly take into consideration the facts, and come to the conclusion that there is NO proof that will support God on any kind of supernatural phenomena. And in fact if there ever were actual scientific proof that God did exist, than it would not be contrary to Objectivism because everything has to be based on objective reality and solid facts. It wouldn't change the philosophy.

(Not that either one of us thinks this will happen of course!)

I have been revisiting conversations in my head that I have had with my son over the last year about this subject. I need to come up with a way to express this to him that I do not believe in God or the supernatural because I do not believe there is proof to support it - but that while that has been my conclusion and most of our friends that study the philosophy it is NOT a reason to reject looking into the philosophy further. As I see it now (and please correct me here if I am mistaken) is that becoming an atheist can be the direct result of applying Objectivist principles.

He has read Anthem, The Fountainhead - he isn't interested in reading Atlas nor any of Ayn Rand's essays.

He is making an honest effort on his own to have his questions answered. He is currently taking a comparative religion class - which I think is a great idea. (Actually, I would love to take a class like that as well as a few philosophy classes because I find both religion and philosophy interesting in general.)

So my question here is do you have any advice on how I can convey this to him? I don't want to make the same mistake, and have him feel like I am shoving something down his throat. However, I also feel somewhat of an urgency for him to look deeper, and not just on the surface of the philosophy. I feel as though I have done him a great disservice, and am compelled to correct it as soon as possible - but the right way this time!

Any thoughts, advice, etc are appreciated.

One of the reasons we live with Mystery is that the universe is vast and stranger than we can imagine. If you look at what we are, recent arrivals to the Land of Reason. Anatomically modern humans have been around for perhaps a quarter of a million years and it is only in the last fifty thousand years or so we have learned to use our brains in a highly abstract manner. Mathematics and science is even more recent. Humans probably transitioned from a god haunted world to one that works on principles and logic, maybe five thousand years ago and the Greeks help to lead us from the "demon haunted world" as Sagan put it.

So people are still hung up in the transition phase, for the most part. We have got to stop confusing our reaction to the vastness of the Cosmos (anyone who is not so moved is dead from the neck up) with the truth of theological nonsense. To say "God is Great!" is a poor way of realizing there is more Out There than we can fully encompass with the current version of our mental wetware. Greater understanding will come with some evolutionary changes to our species. Give it time! You and I won't live to see it, but it is happening as sure as sunrise

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob, that was pretty damn good!

When I'm sober I'll probably retract that.

But just ask me where to put my money to find out where I'm really coming from.

--Brant

Where do you put your money and where are you really coming from?

I have discovered that four in the a.m., I tend to be prophetic. I am descending from the Tribe of Judah which is the cradle of the Hebraic Prophets. So before the sun rises (more exactly before the earth turns sufficiently) I tend to be Cosmic in my outlook. By 8:00 A.M. and after I have had my first cup of coffee for the morning I revert to materialist reductionist mode complete with Popperian caveats. So it goes, it so happens.

Moshe (Moses) of the Tribe of Levi saw the Burning Bush at five in the morning local time. If I saw a Bush aflame and not being consumed at that hour I too would have taken off my shoes and covered my face. However if I had my morning coffee I would have realized that it was static discharge and ionization of the air near the tips of the branches (aka St. Elmo's Fire). God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the reasons we live with Mystery is that the universe is vast and stranger than we can imagine. If you look at what we are, recent arrivals to the Land of Reason. Anatomically modern humans have been around for perhaps a quarter of a million years and it is only in the last fifty thousand years or so we have learned to use our brains in a highly abstract manner. Mathematics and science is even more recent. Humans probably transitioned from a god haunted world to one that works on principles and logic, maybe five thousand years ago and the Greeks help to lead us from the "demon haunted world" as Sagan put it.

So people are still hung up in the transition phase, for the most part. We have got to stop confusing our reaction to the vastness of the Cosmos (anyone who is not so moved is dead from the neck up) with the truth of theological nonsense. To say "God is Great!" is a poor way of realizing there is more Out There than we can fully encompass with the current version of our mental wetware. Greater understanding will come with some evolutionary changes to our species. Give it time! You and I won't live to see it, but it is happening as sure as sunrise

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree with Brant. Very good indeed! Do keep staying up late.

Barbara

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Brant. Very good indeed! Do keep staying up late.

Barbara

Or waking up very early. The Prophets had insomnia, one of God's gifts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the reasons we live with Mystery is that the universe is vast and stranger than we can imagine. If you look at what we are, recent arrivals to the Land of Reason. Anatomically modern humans have been around for perhaps a quarter of a million years and it is only in the last fifty thousand years or so we have learned to use our brains in a highly abstract manner. Mathematics and science is even more recent. Humans probably transitioned from a god haunted world to one that works on principles and logic, maybe five thousand years ago and the Greeks help to lead us from the "demon haunted world" as Sagan put it.

So people are still hung up in the transition phase, for the most part. We have got to stop confusing our reaction to the vastness of the Cosmos (anyone who is not so moved is dead from the neck up) with the truth of theological nonsense. To say "God is Great!" is a poor way of realizing there is more Out There than we can fully encompass with the current version of our mental wetware. Greater understanding will come with some evolutionary changes to our species. Give it time! You and I won't live to see it, but it is happening as sure as sunrise

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree with Brant. Very good indeed! Do keep staying up late.

Barbara

Wow - that is an interesting and eloquent way to put it I think.

Thank you for all the responses. I am probably projecting a bit too much on my son because I wished I found Objectivism when I was his age or at least in my early 20s - you know - the whole parents wanting better for their kid, etc. etc.

Maybe I am being impatient. And yes - I am grateful he is housebroken! While I would like to sit in on his class, that isn't feasible right now, (and I don't think he would be cool with that haha). However, he is willing to talk to me a bit about what he is learning so any time the opportunity presents itself to talk about religion in general I jump on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherry:

Completely understand. However, it is Sherry's issue not your son's and he knows it at some level, so trust me on this one.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Up until a few days ago, I was pretty much convinced that most people that were not already atheists or at least agnostic - or at the very least having serious doubts about God and religion - probably were not ones that I would try to discuss Objectivism with in depth. Rand's fiction, absolutely - but I am usually very careful before jumping from discussing her novels to jumping into the philosophy. That is not to say I didn't think they were unworthy or anything - it has just been my experience that it has been hard to talk about Objectivism with those that are religious or have a belief in God or the supernatural. (A lot, no doubt, because I am still wet behind the ears in explaining it.)

I think I have made a mistake here; without out realizing it, I have been saying to myself that Objectivist principles declare that there is no God or supernatural.

I don't think you have made a mistake. For Rand verbatim said believing in God is incompatible with rationality.

My husband and I started discussing this the other night. The reason it came up is because our 18 year old son is reluctant to learn anything more about the philosophy. He has admitted that all three of us get a long a bit better since we have been studying it, and he has admitted that it has had some (to him) positive changes in our lives. He also agrees with a good bit of it regarding personal responsibility, not sacrificing yourself for others etc. However, we did something I think many people new to a subject they are excited about do: we ended up trying to shove him into it - and didn't take it slow, etc. So of course, that is one reason he is a bit adverse to it.

The other reason, which seems to be the biggest factor, is that he doesn't like the fact that it rules out any possibility of the supernatural or god. He is someone you could refer to as agnostic. Before I met my husband, I raised him as a single parent until he was almost 8 years old, and religion was a very very important part of our life. So although we have been out of it for 10 years, I am sure it wasn't easy on him.

Anyway - back to the conversation with my husband. He stated something that I don't think I really considered. He said that the REASON that Objectivists don't believe in God or the supernatural is because there is no PROOF that there is God or the supernatural. And that one that makes a study of the philosophy and understands it will truly take into consideration the facts, and come to the conclusion that there is NO proof that will support God on any kind of supernatural phenomena. And in fact if there ever were actual scientific proof that God did exist, than it would not be contrary to Objectivism because everything has to be based on objective reality and solid facts. It wouldn't change the philosophy.

(Not that either one of us thinks this will happen of course!)

I have been revisiting conversations in my head that I have had with my son over the last year about this subject. I need to come up with a way to express this to him that I do not believe in God or the supernatural because I do not believe there is proof to support it - but that while that has been my conclusion and most of our friends that study the philosophy it is NOT a reason to reject looking into the philosophy further. As I see it now (and please correct me here if I am mistaken) is that becoming an atheist can be the direct result of applying Objectivist principles.

He has read Anthem, The Fountainhead - he isn't interested in reading Atlas nor any of Ayn Rand's essays.

He is making an honest effort on his own to have his questions answered. He is currently taking a comparative religion class - which I think is a great idea. (Actually, I would love to take a class like that as well as a few philosophy classes because I find both religion and philosophy interesting in general.)

So my question here is do you have any advice on how I can convey this to him? I don't want to make the same mistake, and have him feel like I am shoving something down his throat. However, I also feel somewhat of an urgency for him to look deeper, and not just on the surface of the philosophy. I feel as though I have done him a great disservice, and am compelled to correct it as soon as possible - but the right way this time!

Any thoughts, advice, etc are appreciated.

Sherry,

your post struck a chord on a very personal level with me because I have daughter who is only two years older than your son.

I have always encouraged my daughter to form her own judgement, whatever the issue. When asked (she has very often asked me and my husband for our opinion on many issues, far more than we asked our own parents), I give her my point of view, but don't impose it on her.

When my husband and I left our Christian church, we did not cancel our daughter's membership together with ours, although we could have (she was still a child at that time). We wanted her to decide for herself later when she was old enough. When she was fourteen, she decided to leave the church too.

As for Rand's novels, I see a certain problematic in recommending to very young persons, the reason being that people that young tend to identify strongly with the heroes/heroines in books. I find a book like THE FOUNTAINHEAD, in which the hero commits a rape, very disturbing, especially since Rand designed Roark as an "ideal man", a role model to be emulated. If I had a son, I would not want him to identify with such a "hero", nor my daughter to identify with the heroine Dominique Francon, who is so full of cold hatred, and despite appearing to be an independent woman, is pliable property in the hands of the hero.

Hero and heroine are both totally devoid of empathy and bent on destroying each other.

I have just started reading ATLAS SHRUGGED, and the same pattern can be observed.

The heroine Dagny says of herself that she has never felt anything at all. Rearden and D'Anconia are similar. No empathy there.

Dialogue between Dagny and Rearden:

"I'm not broke in that sense, Hank."

"I think I'm going to break you some day - in that sense."

"Why?"

"Because I've always wanted to." (end quote)

Here it is again: the wish to destroy.

Have you asked your son what he thinks of a type like Roark?

Edited by Xray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherry,

Maybe you could introduce him to some good books on the topic. For theism there is Ed Feser's excellent new book The Last Superstition. The best of the atheist books is Steele's Atheism Explained.

-Neil Parille

Link to post
Share on other sites
Up until a few days ago, I was pretty much convinced that most people that were not already atheists or at least agnostic - or at the very least having serious doubts about God and religion - probably were not ones that I would try to discuss Objectivism with in depth. Rand's fiction, absolutely - but I am usually very careful before jumping from discussing her novels to jumping into the philosophy. That is not to say I didn't think they were unworthy or anything - it has just been my experience that it has been hard to talk about Objectivism with those that are religious or have a belief in God or the supernatural. (A lot, no doubt, because I am still wet behind the ears in explaining it.)

I think I have made a mistake here; without out realizing it, I have been saying to myself that Objectivist principles declare that there is no God or supernatural.

My husband and I started discussing this the other night. The reason it came up is because our 18 year old son is reluctant to learn anything more about the philosophy. He has admitted that all three of us get a long a bit better since we have been studying it, and he has admitted that it has had some (to him) positive changes in our lives. He also agrees with a good bit of it regarding personal responsibility, not sacrificing yourself for others etc. However, we did something I think many people new to a subject they are excited about do: we ended up trying to shove him into it - and didn't take it slow, etc. So of course, that is one reason he is a bit adverse to it.

The other reason, which seems to be the biggest factor, is that he doesn't like the fact that it rules out any possibility of the supernatural or god. He is someone you could refer to as agnostic. Before I met my husband, I raised him as a single parent until he was almost 8 years old, and religion was a very very important part of our life. So although we have been out of it for 10 years, I am sure it wasn't easy on him.

Anyway - back to the conversation with my husband. He stated something that I don't think I really considered. He said that the REASON that Objectivists don't believe in God or the supernatural is because there is no PROOF that there is God or the supernatural. And that one that makes a study of the philosophy and understands it will truly take into consideration the facts, and come to the conclusion that there is NO proof that will support God on any kind of supernatural phenomena. And in fact if there ever were actual scientific proof that God did exist, than it would not be contrary to Objectivism because everything has to be based on objective reality and solid facts. It wouldn't change the philosophy.

(Not that either one of us thinks this will happen of course!)

I have been revisiting conversations in my head that I have had with my son over the last year about this subject. I need to come up with a way to express this to him that I do not believe in God or the supernatural because I do not believe there is proof to support it - but that while that has been my conclusion and most of our friends that study the philosophy it is NOT a reason to reject looking into the philosophy further. As I see it now (and please correct me here if I am mistaken) is that becoming an atheist can be the direct result of applying Objectivist principles.

He has read Anthem, The Fountainhead - he isn't interested in reading Atlas nor any of Ayn Rand's essays.

He is making an honest effort on his own to have his questions answered. He is currently taking a comparative religion class - which I think is a great idea. (Actually, I would love to take a class like that as well as a few philosophy classes because I find both religion and philosophy interesting in general.)

So my question here is do you have any advice on how I can convey this to him? I don't want to make the same mistake, and have him feel like I am shoving something down his throat. However, I also feel somewhat of an urgency for him to look deeper, and not just on the surface of the philosophy. I feel as though I have done him a great disservice, and am compelled to correct it as soon as possible - but the right way this time!

Any thoughts, advice, etc are appreciated.

Sherry,

I expect your son is intelligent to figure it all out himself as time goes on on his own. I am not sure what you are worried about unless it that you fear you will alienate him from yourself. I gather that you and he spent time in religious activities years ago but you don't come across as the kind of parent who threatens that if he didn't believe something he would be in danger of going to hell.

I think the trick is simply to deal with him in a respectful way and reason with him about whatever else you talk with him about. Perhaps tell him where you stand on an issue under discussion and give your reason (s). Ask him what he thinks about something and ask him what his reason or reasons are.

I am curious just what your son finds appealing about the supernatural? But that is a rhetorical question.

My son read comic books as a preteen and loved them, Conan The Barbarian was one of his favorites and then on to a number of others Iron Man, Daredevil etc. He certainly learned the distinction between fantasy and reality.

I read The Star Gazer by Harzanyi at about ten or eleven. It is the life story of Galileo and provided some historical perspective about the Inquisition and the notion of heresy, holding an idea which makes sense to you but is contrary to the dogma of the Church. It was twenty years before I encountered Atlas Shrugged but I was reading Asimov, G.G. Simpson, and was pretty much scientifically oriented with the naturalistic worldview. I would ask girls on dates what they thought about evolution to try to find someone who was a kindred spirit.

Just nurture your relationship with your son regardless of whatever differences you may have. Enjoy the arguments but don't make him feel rejected if he doesn't see the world the way you do.

Give him a hug. Tell him you love him and are proud of him. (not out of a clear blue sky but when appropriate whatever that means)

www.campaignforliberty.com 19 Apr 3PM 146964; 21Apr 5PM 146752 About 800 more members in about 24 hrs. This movement has passion and dedicated people who believe in the Constitution in a way our politicians with one or two exceptions do not.

gulch

Edited by galtgulch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gulch:

Great advice. I did just about the same with my son and my daughter. I would be fine if they turned out like Thomas of Aquinas.

Have either of you read these two books?

Asimov's Guide to the Bible (Random House, 1969 1230 pages) on the New Testament and there is one for the Old Testament also.

I thought they were great when I read them in 1969.

BEAUTIFUL day in New York City! I am so happy that O'Biwan the MAGNIFICENT is putting us out there as a target again under his new program the SPREAD the TERRORISM O'BIWAN PLAN [sTOP] by bringing the misunderstood volunteer coast guardsman here for trial.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherry,

I'm in a somewhat similar situation, although at an earlier stage. I have a son that's 12, and a daughter that's 9. When I was deployed to Korea for a year, my wife had taken them to a local Baptist church which they all enjoyed. Until a few years ago, I would be what you consider Agnostic. My wife knows this, and it's a source of apprehension when approaching Objectivism in the home.

I've had a few conversations with my son about Objectivism, and I'm certain my approach isn't solid. I'm not doing any cramming, but I've suggested my son read Anthem (if he so chooses). When situtations present themselves where I can inject my philosophical stance, I do and explain why I feel that way. I also ask my son what he thinks about the situation. It's about open dialogue without pressure. I'm still learning, so I'm hoping that I can learn with him along the way.

It's imperative not to push. I don't feel that I'm doing that. But I live in a house divided when it comes to religion. My daughter goes to church with some of her friends. I don't wish to intervene due to the confusion that's likely to ensue. So with my daughter, I'm very cautious. Like daughter, like mother. My focus with her is being an individual with regard to doing for herself and not having to rely on others. I'm sure you can attest to being the servant of a child that doesn't want to get up to grab a drink, or even put toppings on her sandwich (because mom and dad make it perfect...lol). She's also finding the words "I can't" very easy to say. In this case, my wife is the facilitator because she's just being a mom. My point here is that I use my daughter's actions as ways of injecting the "do for yourself" mentality as a starter.

But my wife...that's a tough one. She's a believer. I approach the subject with her often, but more or less to gauge why she feels the way she does. Trust me, I've tried for years to grasp faith and it's never worked...ever. We aren't aggressive in our differences, but it still puts me in a tough spot simply because how we raise our kids is fundamentally different. Makes for challenging parenthood.

Overall, your approach is very good. As your son is now an adult, you'll have to let him make those decisions on his own. You've empowered him, and now he's searching for the truth of things through his own eyes. He has more tools at his disposal. Either way he's in good hands...his own.

~ Shane

Edited by sbeaulieu
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shane:

I have been married to women from both worlds and I have remained consistent with some modifications of position.

I just posted this on another thread, but I think you would find this worthy of exposing your wife and children to. As you guys are aware, I have been proselytizing for her since I was 14.

I am very active in the home school community from both a Constitutional and individual freedom perspective. I do not see any reason why a Christian, christian, Morman, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Daoist cannot be moved to objectivism within the context of the approach taken on this link:

http://christianobjectivist.net/about.html

There are a lot more christian and catholic objectivists than any of us realize. Hell I've moved a lot of them to objectivism and their "faith" issues are there own.

At a minimum, it is a bridge to your wife and daughter and remember never burn a bridge unless you are attacking in another direction -

I love Marine Commander's:

"Retreat, hell! We're just attacking in a different direction!"~Major General Oliver P. Smith. Marine Corps. (Response to reporters query) Korean War Chosin Reservoir - Cong. Charles Rangle from Harlem NYC - was in that battle - "Frozen Chosin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir

He was a long winded Marine - we all remember "Nuts!" in WW II.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Thanks for the post. I'll review the link from home later. I didn't intend to divert the attention from Sherry. I was merely reflecting on the difficulties most of us have with communicating softly to our loved ones our beliefs. She's a lot further along than I am. I'd be interested to read how her son progresses :)

~ Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

Shane:

I have been married to women from both worlds and I have remained consistent with some modifications of position.

I just posted this on another thread, but I think you would find this worthy of exposing your wife and children to. As you guys are aware, I have been proselytizing for her since I was 14.

I am very active in the home school community from both a Constitutional and individual freedom perspective. I do not see any reason why a Christian, christian, Morman, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Daoist cannot be moved to objectivism within the context of the approach taken on this link:

http://christianobjectivist.net/about.html

There are a lot more christian and catholic objectivists than any of us realize. Hell I've moved a lot of them to objectivism and their "faith" issues are there own.

At a minimum, it is a bridge to your wife and daughter and remember never burn a bridge unless you are attacking in another direction -

I love Marine Commander's:

"Retreat, hell! We're just attacking in a different direction!"~Major General Oliver P. Smith. Marine Corps. (Response to reporters query) Korean War Chosin Reservoir - Cong. Charles Rangle from Harlem NYC - was in that battle - "Frozen Chosin"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir

He was a long winded Marine - we all remember "Nuts!" in WW II.

Adam

Oh, hey, you ARE Adam Selene! By the way, I am one of those unrepentant Roman Catholics who agree with 95% of Objectivism. The problem with most Objectivists (many of the people here, excepted), are that they make it an all-or-nothing proposition. They get hung up on that "God thing" and go around "correcting" people for their religious beliefs.

I don't care if people think I'm irrational. They can get used to it, like I'm used to many of them owning way too many pictures of naked men staring at skyscrapers silhouetted by the rising sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay: Here's what I regard as the most irrefutable evidence of God, and his creating the Earth: The Big Bang theory. It suggests that at some point, the universe indeed had a starting point in time for originating.

My personal revelation that there is a God: Woman. There can be nothing save Divine design responsible for the physical and spiritual sensation making love to a beautiful woman can bring to a man.

My proof that there is a devil: Woman. Try living with one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Okay: Here's what I regard as the most irrefutable evidence of God, and his creating the Earth: The Big Bang theory. It suggests that at some point, the universe indeed had a starting point in time for originating.

My personal revelation that there is a God: Woman. There can be nothing save Divine design responsible for the physical and spiritual sensation making love to a beautiful woman can bring to a man.

My proof that there is a devil: Woman. Try living with one.

There's nothing in mainstream Big Bang theory to suggest there's a God -- and you still have to deal with all those philosophical arguments against God. Also, Big Bang theory is just a theory. It might prove to be false -- in which case, then what? Would you stop believing in God?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My proof that there is a devil: Woman. Try living with one.

Married to a women for 53 years, been together for 54 years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

My proof that there is a devil: Woman. Try living with one.

Married to a women for 53 years, been together for 54 years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I didn't take either of his "Woman" proofs seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My proof that there is a devil: Woman. Try living with one.

Married to a women for 53 years, been together for 54 years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I didn't take either of his "Woman" proofs seriously.

Dan:

Good because they were neither clever or clarifying.

Do you reside in NJ?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now