I haven’t read the Bible nor Atlas Shrugged, but I did enjoy the Satanic Bible and The Fountainhead if that counts as anything.
The Bible - Which one? Plus, the bible isn’t one book. Then there’s the whole issue regarding mistranslation, errors in transcribing, and outright revision. Is a particular book a historical account, is it purely alegorical, or is it a mix of messages depending on your position and understanding at a given point in time? That’s not even getting into the way the Church or the State has used the bible to justify just about any atrocity you can think of.
Can’t really call the Bible as a favorite book. Portions of it hold some wisdom, but I would not call it a favorite based on that.
Atlas Shrugged is fine if you like watching Ayn Rand beat her chest for over 1000 pages and are 100% in agreement with her (anything less is simply unacceptable). There has been talk for a long time about a movie, which might be interesting if only for condensing the novel - although I have very little faith in Hollywood capturing the message of the novel.
There is no argument that both books have sold very well and have a great deal of influence. I don’t think this is sufficient to make them favorites, at least not for me.
Try the Brick Testament
As a Catholic I certainly consider the Bible a favorite book. I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged and probably never will, I would prefer to read more Rothbard. Time is scarce and I’ve never even read anything from Mises.
I actually laughed aloud.
Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs. Also, Newton’s quest to “know the mind of God” was what inspired him to create his physics in the first place. The large majority of his writings were on theology, not physics. Learn some history of science before you spout off nonsense like that.
Your ignorance of something does not make others knowledge a belief in the supernatural. There is no supernatural, only things you have knowledge of and understand and things you don’t.
Given the limitless expanse of the universe do you really think you have it all figured out already? Or just maybe, there might be forces and powers at work in the universe that right now are way beyond your ability to fully understand. If others have a better understanding, knowledge or more experience with those forces does that by definition mean it is a belief in the supernatural simply because you don’t?
Historically, there is a very clear relationship between libertarian thought and major religious doctrines of individual choice and responsibility.
What does that mean exactly? I haven’t read Machiavelli but I am interested to know what it means to be a “Machiavellian Libertarian” just out of curiosity.
I consider myself a part of the Machiavellian research tradition, which seeks to explain how politics actually functions instead of how it “should” function. I think public choice economics is broadly in the Machiavellian research tradition. Machiavelli himself was a republican and sought the unification of Italy, but his positive program exposing the dominant strategies used by “successful” politicians seems to be dead on. Viewing politics from within the Machiavellian paradigm causes one to look at the power struggles going on and find it hard to see exactly what we are supposed to be in awe about. There isn’t really anything glorious about envious, power hungry, politicians jockeying for position.
I was wondering how long this thread would take to get belligerent. It’s almost always started by an atheist.
Anyway, whoever pointed out that the Bible is a complex book, or more accurately, that it is a combination of books of different genres to which there is no agreed upon canon is correct. Having a “Bible discussion” is kind of a fruitless task unless the context is set. That being said, just answering the general question “do you consider the Bible a favorite book” with maybe an explanation is a completely doable task; the problem arises when people want to debate you on your opinion of it.
Atlas Shrugged is probably in my top three. Sometimes number 1 depending on my mood.
Actually, I like Fountainhead better than Atlas Shrugged. Roark is probably my favorite character of all time. Or at least one of my favorites.
You are neither hot nor cold. In other words, you are lukewarm.
The Old Testament is probably as libertarian as they come.
Define “they come.” Compared to other Testaments, maybe. Compared to For a New Liberty, I think not. On the larger issue of whether or not the book is libertarian overall, I think some Amalekites and Midianites might want to dispute it.
How?
That would be a motivation, not an insight.
Correlation is not causation.
Ok let me rephrase. How do you justify your belief in time invariant natural laws?
This means you’re claiming Catholicism is not a religious belief but a scientific belief. Can you tell me where I can read about the scientific theories it holds? What theory does have about the origin of the earth? About the flood? About dead Jesus and returning from the dead? About flying Jesus? What is the theory of praying?
I thought there was a clear relationship between having to believe or be put to death; which doesn’t seem very libertarian to me nor very scientific.
If you see an unknown light in the night sky is it a scientific or religious? People have real experiences with very powerful forces that are not easily explained by current scientific knowledge that doesn’t mean those things did not happen.
What atheists don’t understand is that most people believe in God because of their own experiences with these forces not because the Bible says so.
The inability to reproduce something in a lab does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Science has no answer for where matter comes from or millions of other questions so please don’t act like science has solved everything.
I guess you are just making stuff up now. All major religious text are big proponents of individual liberty and choice, the most important being to serve God or not.
Fri. 10/04/09 21:31 EDT
.post #59
True…and the ability to invent a word or expression does not mean its alleged referent does exist.
Insofar as men in religious authority have killed non-believers for the crime of “heresy,” Nielsio is correct, obviously.
Insofar as “religious doctrine” encourages the killing of non-believers, Nielsio may be right, in the case of some religious doctrine. “Sin” seems to be a fairly common religious concept, and doctrinal proscription is frequently transformed into political punishment.
Yahweh punished Adam and Eve for questioning His authority and thinking for themselves. That doesn’t sound very libertarian.
But are they consistent proponents? It would be nice if you could provide some substantiation for your statement here.
Edit: corrected spelling error.
Believing in the supernatural is an oversimplification. It’s more about living an ideal life, one that is different from the life advocated in Atlas where you just live for your own sake and expect to be happy. I think we know how that ends up. Ayn Rand died hating the world and miserable.