But communism is based, explicitly I believe, on the denial of God–in other words, atheism is a core tenant of most communist societies. The State replaces God, sometimes quite deliberately. And the State is an uncaring beast….

Of course, not all Atheists are communists, and not all communists are Atheists. But communism and fascism both show that it really doesn’t matter what kind of beliefs you have on God–people are capable of pure evil regardless. Conversely, people can do great good, regardless of religious views or lack thereof.

It is not so difficult to do the communal living thing in today’s age. People do it all the time.

First and foremost is the family, which is clearly a communal living thing. A loving married couple, a married man and woman, often live communally. In some cases the extended family is also part of this communal living as they help one another in time of need, look in on their elders, on their relatives going through illness or hard times, and so on.

Also, there are communal spiritual settings, such as Ashrams in India and elsewhere, in which a group of people devoted to a teaching and a teacher living in harmony and mutual interest.

William

Jesus is right, of course. Communal living is the ideal. The problem is, people aren’t ready for it. Communists, socialists, etc. haven’t ever figured out that the people need to be, for lack of a better word, more holy than they are now. For communal living to work, you have to have 100% committed, selfless, honest, full of integrity, hardworking people. And THAT kind of people is hard to find. People who put others above their own self-interest? Hard to do… so communal living, in todays age, just doesn’t work. Even the apostles knew that, with the cursing and deaths of the couple who tried to cheat the system back then (I am forgetting their names).

Leftist policy sounds very good on the surface and worked in early Christianity… but the liberal teachings of Jesus obviously assume a belief in God and a fraternal love that ties the community together. Socialism in a community already predisposed to practicing generosity, grace, and a strong work ethic would be perfectly workable.

Lehosh on March 13, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Lehosh, I am not aware of any of Jesus teachings that could be considered collectivist or socialistic in nature. Nor am I aware of any Leftist policies that surfaced and worked in early Christianity. What would you be referring to?

I’m from Romania/Transylvania-born. Beautiful country, with generous people, corrupt government in communism and after, but now on its way…the EU is helping and the next generation will be much better off.

Good luck with your studies and your European-experiences. Tell us about them, when you can. I work in large hospitals and spend much time at their offices. Looking forward to more of your posts,

Roark, what brings you to the Netherlands? Are you a U.S. citizen or European? I’m European, U.S. citizen, living in San Diego, and loving it :) Only answer if you care to. Great summation on the Rand philosophy. Keep us posted on the local politics and happenings. Regards,

Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Ok, last one (damn you Allah P, you’ve highjacked my night, haha!). Thanks Entelechy, I tried in as few words as possible! I am in fact an American (grew up in the Wyoming and Utah) and am attending graduate school in the Netherlands for my MSc in clinical psych. I love Holland though, it’s a crazy place! I love it for it’s virtues and hate it for its vices though. Where abouts in Europe are you from? I haven’t gotten to everywhere yet with my limited student budget, but I’m working on it (Berlin, Praag, Spain, Milano). By the way, I love SD and was just there (again) in August! I hope to do my doctorate at UCSD, but we’ll see it’s a ways off. But, take care and best.

slander: saying of something false and damaging: the act or offense of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation
Who said what that you considered it slander?

Maxx on March 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM

I’d bet you’d be surprised how many atheists believe in Gaia instead of God. Or believe that the earth is a living creature or some such nonsense. Everyone believes in something greater than themselves, whether you give a name to it is really not relevant. Sometimes the belief manifests itself in something simple like UFOs or the illuminati – but it’s part of the human condition to think that there is something bigger/badder out there controlling us.

lorien1973 on March 13, 2007 at 9:43 AM

You’re probably right, Maxx, slander was probably too strong of a word, Thank you for the correction. However, I do have a major problem with that quote above, but will leave it. I don’t have the energy and I need to get off the damn computer, ha!

It will fill me with glee if Tancredo is president, and not only for a moment. And if I can’t have him, then Fred Thompson will do nicely.

archon2001 on March 13, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Thompson

“Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions”.
Oliver Wendell Holmes- (1809 – 1894)
G. K. Chesterton once said of his friend H. G. Wells: “I think he thought that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

John on March 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Nice. I like it, haha.

Ayn Rand is a touch insane and if we ever had a debate about relativism/objectivism I’d expand.

Ok, so it’s curious how only five words into your statement, you attack Ayn Rand ad hominem. Not a good way to critically debate ideas.

For now I’ll explain my major problems with Rand and why objectivism isn’t a way to run a government. Objectivism is all about the self and what you can do to make yourself happy; a hedonistic Aristotle on steroids if you will. Happiness to the objectivists is relative therefore whatever makes you happy, no matter what it is, is the morally good thing to do. Can you imagine a government run by Objectivists? It’d be the most corrupt oligarchic government to date.

This is a gross misrepresentation of Objectivist ethics and politics. To be an Egoist, and have a morality of self-interest is to treat other people with just as much respect and dignity as any human being should. Most religious folks and liberals are very threatened by her rejection of “Altruism” and “self-sacrifice”, as a necessity to achieve one’s own happiness, since these are two tenants that directly contradict most religions and Marxist ideologies. In fact Ayn Rand loved people and “man/woman” so much, that in fact, that is who she worshipped. This is another reason why there is usually such a strong reaction against her from any sort of theist. But to say that “happiness is relative” is 100% false and against everything her ethics state (please read Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness). It just pains religious people to think that people can be good, have values, and be happy without any of it deriving from a God. Also, Ayn Rand’s politics are quite simply “laz-a-faire” capitalism. It is not a scary, “hedonistic” government in any such way or form. Government is necessary, in order to protect the individual rights of everybody from any form of force whether it be from a petty robber, a scam artist who illegally gains ownership over another’s money and property under false pretences or by means of force, as well as from foreign governments/countries (e.g. insert Iran, Syria presently, Japan/Germany/Italy/Russia past etc.) that threaten its citizens, etc..

She criticizes Kant for being selfless when Kant got the principles of Utilitarianism from John Stewart Mill who Rand practically copied and expanded on. Objectivism isn’t realistic in a practical world.

This is false. She primarily criticizes Kant for his horrible epistemology. Through his complicated “Principles of Knowledge” he basically denies the fact that man can truly know and understand objective reality, thus giving way to the arch skepticism, that shot the Enlightenment in the arm, and has led to many anti-progress/anti-human life developments in the world ever since. One these manifestations being the extreme liberal/Marxist philosophy which pervades Europe and American university academia today, which we all know and love here (sarcasm on) as moral relativity and multi-culturalism. This is why Kant was so destructive. And to say that she “copied” Mill is crude; not only in the fact that the very nature of the field of philosophy is to build on past knowledge of previous philosophers, thus leading to many philosophies overlapping, but also because her and Mill differ in so many other aspects (e.g. ethics, politics, etc.). Finally, counter to what was said, Objectivism is necessary in a truly moral world which respects human beings as ends and not means. Religion does not do that and neither does Marxism in any shape or form.

Oh, P.S. Ayn Rand has a huge beef with Christianity and all organized religion for that matter, hell she has a problem with all organizations.

Yes she did. She was a devout atheist, just as most philosophers are, just as almost every important scientist has been as well. Not something to be ashamed about or ridiculed for; unless we’d all like to go back to the days of Galileo or the Inquisition of course…

I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York’s skyline, the sky over New York, and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect the buildings with my body – - Ayn Rand

I repeat myself – she was a ‘moral’ lush and politically, who knows what? Objectivism is hard to figure out. However, as a foreigner, she wrote in English like nightingales sing. I found myself going back 2-3 pages, to reread certain paragraphs. I own every single book ever published by/about her.

And she had a never-ending brain. In her 70s she took lessons in physics and she was always a good mathematician. She could also make mincemeat of any Leftie. In spite of some of her strangeness, I adore her. All highly intelligent people are a little ‘crazy’ and who isn’t inconsistent now and then? We need one for these times…

I have a personal beef with the new version of Christianity out there, as they profess that anyone can be forgiven for anything, just by “asking”… takes the whole idea of Divine Consequence out of the equation.

I am not sure why that would cause a “personal beef”, but Christianity has always been about forgiveness. Afterall, the forgiveness of our sins is what the founder died for.

I don’t know of very many “new version” Christian churches that teach you can be forgiven anything just by “asking”. People often use the term “ask” as a short-hand version for the concept of repentance – which is what most Christians believe is required in order to have sins forgiven (along with a belief in Jesus as God/Son of God, His death on the cross as payment for our sins and His subsequent resurrection).

That being said however, I do believe most Christians believe that the only sin which cannot be forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Other than that, yes anything can be forgiven if the believer repents.

The whole idea of Christianity is that, yes there are indeed “Divine Consequences” for sin, but those consequences were visited upon Jesus as he willingly laid down his life in substitution for our own. So “divine consequences” have not been taken out of the equation, they are indeed, very much a part of the Christian equation.

Worshipping God is like being a battered wife: “If I say I’m sorry, He’ll like me.

If you say you’re sorry you return to a good marriage. Otherwise, God respects your right to live single and take the hits that fall on all of us alone.

Either way, he likes you plenty.

A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.

And here she sounds exactly like Kant. She contradicts herself all the time and then expects every single principle of objectivism to be taken seriously. But she’s still a great writer.

But you want good political science fiction? Read Robert A. Heinlein (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Red Planet, Orphans of the Sky).

Ayn Rand is a touch insane and if we ever had a debate about relativism/objectivism I’d expand.

Maybe, but she still came up with a gem of reason every now and again:

A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in, of his own will, and that he build the furnace, besides.

“Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions”.
Oliver Wendell Holmes- (1809 – 1894)

G. K. Chesterton once said of his friend H. G. Wells: “I think he thought that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

Zen agnosticism… I do believe there is somthing out there… a power, a universe… somthing… Problem is that it is so vast that we can’t comprehend it.

What makes you belief something is out there? Were you taught something was out there? Do you want to believe something is out there? You admit you don’t know what it is, but how do you know it even exists?

I have seen justice meeted out in my own life, I’ve seen people get their “just deserts”… I do believe in a form of Karma. I do believe in Good and Evil.

How do you define justice? Aristotle believed that justice was “treating equals equally and unequals unequally,” (I believe he coined the term “just deserts”–merit).

Is this form of Karma you believe in universal or societal? For example karma in the sense that someone who breaks a law will get punished for it, or karma in the sense that you cheat on your husband and ultimately your soul suffers? And why do you believe this? Because you’ve seen it before and therefore have proof or because you think it should exist?

Organized religions are a way to “explain”… but it has to be a dumbed down explanation for the peasent masses… one they can understand.

I don’t believe religion offers any explanation, explanation requires reason and faith without proof (or blind faith) requires revelation. Religion tells people something, it doesn’t explain something to someone.

I have a personal beef with the new version of Christianity out there, as they profess that anyone can be forgiven for anything, just by “asking”… takes the whole idea of Divine Consequence out of the equation. This was not believed by Christianity in the past, so the Church has “evovled”…. now… just how does the TRUTH change? How does the rewritting of philosophy change the truth that a Prophet gave 2000 years ago?

Romeo13 on March 13, 2007 at 4:09 PM

The same exact question I ask to most all religions.

This thread is one of the most interesting. It is seldom that one can have: Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Kant, Ayn Rand, Christianity, Objectivism, Zen, Deism, Atheism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and a series of other philosophies and ‘afflictions’ (don’t fight, it’s a tease and self is included) in one thread. And so far no bannings and no major fights. Now that is most intelligent and civilized!

Zen agnosticism… I do believe there is somthing out there… a power, a universe… somthing… Problem is that it is so vast that we can’t comprehend it.

I have seen justice meeted out in my own life, I’ve seen people get their “just deserts”… I do believe in a form of Karma. I do believe in Good and Evil.

Organized religions are a way to “explain”… but it has to be a dumbed down explanation for the peasent masses… one they can understand.

I have a personal beef with the new version of Christianity out there, as they profess that anyone can be forgiven for anything, just by “asking”… takes the whole idea of Divine Consequence out of the equation. This was not believed by Christianity in the past, so the Church has “evovled”…. now… just how does the TRUTH change? How does the rewritting of philosophy change the truth that a Prophet gave 2000 years ago?

Now, don’t get me wrong… I’m glad we no longer have the Inquisition, and see a need for Islam to go through a reformation itself…

But I can’t have “faith” in a “truth” that changes.

Funny that Deism gets little to no coverage from either the Secularists or Religious ideologues.

…I can’t even begin responding to all of the slanderous comments about atheism on this thread

Roark on March 13, 2007 at 3:03 PM

slander: saying of something false and damaging: the act or offense of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation

Who said what that you considered it slander?

As a side note, this is only half true. Leftist policy sounds very good on the surface and worked in early Christianity… but the liberal teachings of Jesus obviously assume a belief in God and a fraternal love that ties the community together. Socialism in a community already predisposed to practicing generosity, grace, and a strong work ethic would be perfectly workable.

Yes. The kibbutzim movement in Israel functioned well and produced some of their best thinkers.

Valiant on March 13, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Ayn Rand is a touch insane and if we ever had a debate about relativism/objectivism I’d expand. For now I’ll explain my major problems with Rand and why objectivism isn’t a way to run a government. Objectivism is all about the self and what you can do to make yourself happy; a hedonistic Aristotle on steroids if you will. Happiness to the objectivists is relative therefore whatever makes you happy, no matter what it is, is the morally good thing to do. Can you imagine a government run by Objectivists? It’d be the most corrupt oligarchic government to date.

And on top of that, objectivism by nature would not be something to run a government; it’d simply be a lifestyle. She criticizes Kant for being selfless when Kant got the principles of Utilitarianism from John Stewart Mill who Rand practically copied and expanded on. Objectivism isn’t realistic in a practical world.

Oh, P.S. Ayn Rand has a huge beef with Christianity and all organized religion for that matter, hell she has a problem with all organizations.