(before you read i hope no one gets offended by the word retarted...that s how i thought when i was 13)my mom and dad are divorced and my father never helped my mother on raising us, so basically she was a single-mother.
he just abandoned my three brothers and me and my mother had to work two jobs all of the time so we never got to see her.
when we did see her it was after school, but all she did was yell at us, make food, and leave to her next job.
He's written a book called "The Spirit Molecule", and a documentary film of the same name has been made. This is all peer reviewed science.... no new age mumbo jumbo
Books and documentaries aren't peer reviewed science.
I will say that it seems that god's natural language is silence and everything else has been a bad translation.
I am absolutely stealing that line.
red cross had a blood drive near me, i decided to go give blood.
i hydrated well, ate some red meat for the iron last night and at lunch, we and gave a pint of blood.
i felt mildly embarrassed, i had no idea what my blood type was.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Cappytan has created a fine opportunity for discussion about Ayn Rand in this thread, and I'd hate to hijack it with personality colorations from respondents.
Then ... don't hijack it?
We've been discussing Ayn Rand and philosophy. You seem to think something else is going on. What that is, I've no idea.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Without considering the dynamics of the formation of the universe, the Bible makes the remark "inexcusable" (vs plausible), referring to God's "invisible qualities" . In other words the Bible declares that it is not plausible, the ONLY conclusion is creation; The other argument is the house analogy(design).
I admit that I know that God is a reality. I do not conclude that from faith or from the Bible, or from deductive or inductive reasoning or from any logic or feelings or experiences or because of something that I read, because in those things there is the possibility of being mistaken.
In my thinking now, the knowledge of God trumps.
Any pretense you initially made about wanting to know more was swiftly proven false. You're just preaching and trying to somehow show the Bible and science reconcile.
They do not.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
It is simply an observation on the pot calling the kettle 'black.'
In what way? The topic requested opinions on Ayn Rand. That was what I offered. It didn't ask for opinions about another guy.
But, snipes and catcalls from the bleachers are merely interruptions and often lead to bad manners.
Which is exactly why I asked about you sniping at someone else who offered his opinion on Ayn Rand, which is the topic.
Now, in response what do we see? Is there discussion? Or, is there peremptory dismissal?
You got a specific reason why I found Adler to be lacking. What were you expecting?
You see, I think it is good to express yourself with alternatives and suggested options for others to consider. If you consider path A to be worthless, then suggested path B and tell why it is better.
You got that. What were you expecting?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Of course a group need not be religious to be a cult.
Agreed.
But I was thinking how ironic it is in this case. The very idea of there being a leader with followers is antithetical to Rand's philosophy of individualism.
It absolutely drops with irony.
I guess it just proves that some people can't help their narcissistic bent and others can't help but adore them.
Interestingly, Ayn Rand became that which she preached against, much like in Animal Farm :)
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
That quotation is by a fellow named John Rogers. One of his claims to fame involved writing the script to the movie CATWOMAN. He's obviously marvellously well-qualified to criticize :)
Surely, Terry, you aren't going down the road of criticizing who said it rather than the substance of the argument itself, are you?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Viviane, how do you feel about Mortimer J. Adler's philosophy books such as 10 Philosophical Mistakes?
I've not read it, but I have read his book "How to Think about God". I found it quite overbearing in in trying to tell others what they mean and believe and then knocking that meaning and belief down.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Next question: how did the energy get there?
The total energy of the universe is zero. And, it appears that there is no such thing as nothing, an absence of everything and anything and that, were it possible to create such a thing, it's incredibly unstable.
