AmaroqWolf

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 16y ago

   I'm currently pursuing Rand's philosophy. Her nonfictions are very valuable because they comprise the philosophy itself. But Peikoff's books and lectures about Objectivism are also extremely valuable. He had to overcome a lot of bad thinkin
2. 2.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 16y ago

   I can counter your argument by saying simply: A homophobe would only have to see the same thing you do (the men kissing), and would draw a completely different conclusion than you do without the aid of religion. That's why you can't rely on
3. 3.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 16y ago

   I've actually never come across that quote of Rand's before. It must be in a book of hers I haven't read. It's a terrible quote to try to justify Objectivist ethics with. The best validation of her ethics I know of is an essay entitled The
4. 4.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 16y ago

   I find it sad that almost every commenter here so far has not only defended the New Atheists, but they've also defended intuition and innate-conscience based morality. You're doing the exact same thing the author of the article accused the
5. 5.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 16y ago

   I think the majority of this article was just intended to show that the "New Atheists" don't have any better justification for their moralities than the religious people do, and that morality must be justified with reason, not from feelings
6. 6.▲
   by AmaroqWolf 17y ago

   "I can then imagine some of them going for the "I deserve it because I was so awesome in my past-life.", which also doesn't hold up because it's a circular argument. So, again, how can they justify their superiority?" I'd personally go with