Objectivism, Atheism & Conflict Between Religion & Science — Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
http://www.aynrandcenter.org
Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Dr. Keith Lockitch, fellow at ARC, explain briefly why Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, are atheistic.
Duration : 0:1:58
Recommended Reading
- Conflict in Workplace: Your Good People Quit
- Do You Have an Innovative Organization?
- Do You Earnestly Believe That It’s The Apparent Workplace Conflict That’s Derailing Your Company’s Sales?
- What do you think you’re worth?
- The Complete Guide to Conflict Resolution in the Workplace
OWNED in 2 minutes
OWNED in 2 minutes
@subdue420 …
@subdue420 Evolution is a scientific discovery, and science refutes religion. Reason is the working antithesis to the vegetable state of cognition one may refer to as “faith,” the supposed means to revelation, or knowledge gifted (not created by a willful means of conceptual focus).
@kingazzaman
On …
@kingazzaman
On the contrary, it clarifies why you should care about others- they are valuable to you personally, emotionally, physically, through their own values- through the improvement of our world. In a way, it’s much more profound an explanation than blindly “loving” others- which means, to have no reason to love others. How hollow is that.
@hyperseauton
…
@hyperseauton
Freud was an idiot.
I agree, evolution …
I agree, evolution itself, is not a refutation of religion. Merely a refutation of some of its claims.
“reason and science …
“reason and science contradict…” Freudian slip…
true…true
Objectivism: A …
Objectivism: A philosophy by which people nobody gives a about find an ontological reason not to give a about anyone else
“Science …
“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.” Martin Luther King Jr.
You’ll actually …
You’ll actually find the wisest, brightest, & smartest people to be:
For Religion (Not with certain Religions or Religious beliefs ofcourse — But not against Religion alltogether)
For Atheism (Not the irrational, arrogant Atheist behaviors or falsehoods that certain individual Atheists tend to give — But Atheism).
Science (With great fasination)
&
A wide range view of Spirituality.
“She takes her mind …
“She takes her mind seriously…the evidence of her senses.” I love that. I feel even science has adopted negative connotations-merely the supposed destruction of religion. It is its opposite.
Let’s not use the word then. To destroy faith use the evidence of your senses. Or do we all reject our own perceptions to that unknowable leap of faith?
A dogma is a …
A dogma is a cherished belief that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the original religious doctrine, or even opposes it. Basically a religious form of majority rule. Like how many Christians use Leviticus to put down gays but ignore the rest of the law.
And all atheist means is no belief in a god. It doesn’t have a default philosophy.
And if you can’t believe it, you’re free to find something else to do, sunshine.
@hgryphon:
Dogma …
@hgryphon:
Dogma makes followers the system? That makes no sense, and isntead of explaining, you went on as if it had any meaning or truth to it. So if you’re saying that Christianity is not the cause, how does hti spertain to anything at all? You brought up a moot point that has no germane point to our discussion, wait, did you read up on 2nd grade logic?
You’re an Atheist, sunshine (wtf lol?), follows methodological or metaphysical natualism by default… wow, can’t believe this.
(Pert 2) And you …
(Pert 2) And you want to name contradictions in what? Sunshine, I’m an atheist, so I don’t know what you’re hoping to do by poking holes in “methodological naturalism,” but be my guest.
Except, thanks to a …
Except, thanks to a little thing called dogma, the followers ARE the system. And er, wait, no, I didn’t say people who contradict, I said Christians who contradict, so no fallacy. And, um, no, I never said christianity was the cause, so no fallacy. The prison statistics are freely available and provided by the US Gov. There are also numerous videos about Christians being the highest population per capita in US prisons Right here on the YouTube.
@hgryphon:
That …
@hgryphon:
That made no sense, we’re not talking about the inconsistencies between the followers and the system, but in the system in itself, and you made a fallacy when assuming that people who contradict Christian philosophy are Christian. Furthermore, a causation/corellation fallacy with the prison statistic. name the contradictions? I’ll name some contradictions in your methodological naturalism after. So how about you provide evidence for your claims.
@e30reece:
…
@e30reece:
Charles Darwin developed his natural selection theory in 1838, and he de-converted to Agnostic Deism in 1851, note that he never even rejected God thea Creator, just religion. Furthermore, it took him 13 years to do so, and not because of science, rather his daughter’s death, and if he were today, you’d be surprised by your nescience about him:
“It is absurd to doubt that an ardent Theist can be an evolutionist as well” ~Charles Darwin
Objectivism is very …
Objectivism is very similar to philosophical realism,a nd in fact I developed my belief in objectivism without even hearing her version of it, in fact the only reason why I developed concepts of objectivism was because of God’s existance himself, and the rejection of Atheism.
What made me laugh is that the person said Reigion and Reason are contradictory, when the guy probably never heard of abduction, and the fact that a guy named Thomas Aquinas existed (lol).
My opinion hasn’t …
My opinion hasn’t been swayed at all. I emerge victorious from this battle.
As long as you shut …
As long as you shut up, we all win.
Good. I win.
Good. I win.
Uh huh. I’ve just …
Uh huh. I’ve just lost interest in caring about your opinion. I see your words, but all my brain registers is blah blah blah.
no, you’re wrong …
no, you’re wrong because I said so. End of story. This is all basic me being a beast stuff, btw.
If you want to be …
If you want to be taken seriously, then when you claim someone’s argument is wrong, you have to back it up. You saying it’s wrong doesn’t make it so.
This is all pretty basic debate team stuff, btw.
No, the fact that …
No, the fact that what you said is wrong is self-evident. I don’t have to prove it.
I am, but that …
I am, but that doesn’t make what I said wrong.