• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?


  • Total voters
    52
No one even noticed that I wrote Trotsky instead of Tolstoy (earlier), in reference to short stories. Buncha illiterate bastards.

:lol: I've actually never read Tolstoy so I gues I'm guilty as charged on that one. What do you expect from a dirty hooligan, though?
 
Master and Man is like 10 pages. Go do it.
 
While you are right that some people consider the mere suggestion that god might not exist as a personal insult, the problem here is that your delivery of that accurate message is often clouded by the fact that your approach belittles the belief in God by comparing it to a belief in leprechauns.

Because it is *IDENTICAL* to believe in leprechauns. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

A less belittling comparison would be to use something like ghosts. The same person who calls me a Godhater® for pointing out the possibility that God might not exist or the bible might not be accurate would probably find it absurd to call me a ghost hater for the same thing, but wouldn't find the comparison of God's existence to the existence of ghosts to be as derogatory.

It likely wouldn't matter, they'd still call you a Godhater no matter what you do because their imaginary friend means more to them than rationality.
 
Because it is *IDENTICAL* to believe in leprechauns. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever.

It likely wouldn't matter, they'd still call you a Godhater no matter what you do because their imaginary friend means more to them than rationality.

So you undermine your own points for the sole purpose of being offensive to those who believe? How does that benefit you?
 
Ayn Rand simply created a fictitious political ideology of selfishness to create a story around it.

L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional religion to sell.

Both were delusional and narcisisisitic and it is revealed in their writing imo.

Ayn Rand rooted her political beliefs in reality and events in her life growing up in the Soviet Union. She uses fiction to portray those beliefs, but also did do a lot of non fiction articles and speeches as well.

L. Ron Hubbard thinks Xeno killed 900 trillion people a couple billion years ago. Which one do you think has more credibility?
 
Literature.org, here I come.

Kickass! After that do Anthem if you haven't (~100 pages). You've then garnered the conversation-credential equivalent of War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged in a mere ~120 pages. Throw in the aforementioned Niet and Mach (Prince) to cover the "History of Uberman", and Dost's "The Uberman Thing is Not Real"... and you're an expert too.

I'm not sure what that has to do with scientology, as I never much read Hubbard (not into sci-fi, I'm more a classics guy). Also, I'm not sure if reading Hubbard's scifi has anything to do with scientology. I'm willing to bet, though, that if one has Spock ears then they are probably willing to believe in volcano people.
 
Its always been my understanding that Scientology was a $5 bet between Golden Age sci fi authors who used to play poker together.

The bet was that Hubbard could create a religion that people would believe in.

He won the bet.
 
So it's like Tiffany.
 
Kickass! After that do Anthem if you haven't (~100 pages). You've then garnered the conversation-credential equivalent of War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged in a mere ~120 pages. Throw in the aforementioned Niet and Mach (Prince) to cover the "History of Uberman", and Dost's "The Uberman Thing is Not Real"... and you're an expert too.

I'm not sure what that has to do with scientology, as I never much read Hubbard (not into sci-fi, I'm more a classics guy). Also, I'm not sure if reading Hubbard's scifi has anything to do with scientology. I'm willing to bet, though, that if one has Spock ears then they are probably willing to believe in volcano people.

I've read everyone else you mentioned except for Tolstoy (including L. Ron Hubbard), so I'll basically be an expert once I finish this (provided I stop getting distracted by phone calls and such.)

The Mission Earth Series by Hubbard (which is complete ****, IMO) is actually riddled with stuff related to scientology. I am in to sci-fi, but I don't do star trek type crap. More like the Asimov, Vonnegut, and Herbert type stuff. If you haven't read Vonnegut, you don't truly understand the power of sci-fi (or possibly satire if you haven't read much Jonathan Swift, either). Her eI go acting like a hooligan again. :lol:
 
Vonnegut is a favorite of mine. I saw him speak about literature when I was in HS ~'88, at the FIU auditorium (my gf got us tickets). It was amazing. (Damn, I'm such a nerd). Anyway, have you tried John Irving? His early stuff is Catch-22/Mockingbird quality.
 
Last edited:
Vonnegut is a favorite of mine. I saw him speak about literature when I was in HS ~'88, at the FIU auditorium (my gf got us tickets). It was amazing. (Damn, I'm such a nerd). Anyway, have you tried John Irving? His early stuff is Catch-22/Mockingbird quality.

Never read Irving, but I've enjoyed the few movies I've seen that were adapted from his stuff.

His name did make me think of something, though. If you haven't read Irvine Welsh's Filth, do so ASAP. I think you would definitely enjoy that book, given your sense of humor.
 
So you undermine your own points for the sole purpose of being offensive to those who believe? How does that benefit you?

Most of these people lack the capacity to question their beliefs regardless, therefore the chances of convincing them that they're wrong are somewhere between slim and none. It's done for those watching from the sidelines, who can recognize that belief in gods and belief in leprechauns are equivalent and equally silly. If nothing else, there is entertainment value is watching crazy people try to justify belief in imaginary friends. Zealots don't change their minds. They're great for laughing at though.
 
Most of these people lack the capacity to question their beliefs regardless, therefore the chances of convincing them that they're wrong are somewhere between slim and none. It's done for those watching from the sidelines, who can recognize that belief in gods and belief in leprechauns are equivalent and equally silly. If nothing else, there is entertainment value is watching crazy people try to justify belief in imaginary friends. Zealots don't change their minds. They're great for laughing at though.

Why bother then, if you have so much disdain for them?
 
Why bother then, if you have so much disdain for them?

For the same reason people debate racists and the like. They're not going to change their minds, but it's not for them, it's to discredit their arguments for those watching. And trust me, it's not at all hard to discredit the claims of the religious.
 
For the same reason people debate racists and the like. They're not going to change their minds, but it's not for them, it's to discredit their arguments for those watching. And trust me, it's not at all hard to discredit the claims of the religious.

The reason to debate racists is because racism is a bad thing, in and of itself. Do you really think believing in God is truly as bad, on it's own, as racism?
 
The reason to debate racists is because racism is a bad thing, in and of itself. Do you really think believing in God is truly as bad, on it's own, as racism?

And the reason to debate religion is because religion is a bad thing, in and of itself. Our beliefs inform our actions, when our beliefs are faulty, as the beliefs of the religious are, then their actions are faulty. Keep in mind, I'm talking only of the people who actually believe this stuff, not the probably majority who only claim belief because they think it's expected of them. When one's beliefs are actually delusional, when they think there are imaginary friends in the sky that they have to please, when they think that the only life that matters is the one that happens after you die, not only do they harm themselves but they harm their children and society in general. Religion, by it's very existence in this country, harms the advancement of society.

In fact, I'd probably characterize religion as worse than racism, especially since the major cause of racist beliefs is religion itself.
 
As a True Atheist™, I feel it my duty to say that when atheists do this, it's nearly always within the context of Christians enforcing legislative policy that affects them, and which is based solely on their interpretation of the bible. The True Atheist™ rarely cares when Christians practice their faith in a way that does not infringe on the freedoms of others. When this occurs the resulting reaction really does become "Like whatever."

Name the last time your hated Christians forced you to do anything

What a bizarre statement. What does this even mean?

You wouldn't understand, you're not a true atheist.
 
So it's a conspiracy theory to think Atheists who obsess over God aren't really Atheists. Righteos.

Nobody is obsessing over God. In fact, if theists would keep all their irrational crap to themselves, keep it out of the schools, keep it out of the political arena, atheists would have no reason whatsoever to ever bring it up.

Want to know who to blame? Look in the mirror.
 
And the reason to debate religion is because religion is a bad thing, in and of itself. Our beliefs inform our actions, when our beliefs are faulty, as the beliefs of the religious are, then their actions are faulty. Keep in mind, I'm talking only of the people who actually believe this stuff, not the probably majority who only claim belief because they think it's expected of them. When one's beliefs are actually delusional, when they think there are imaginary friends in the sky that they have to please, when they think that the only life that matters is the one that happens after you die, not only do they harm themselves but they harm their children and society in general. Religion, by it's very existence in this country, harms the advancement of society.

If it weren't for religion, millions of people like you would be dead already to murder, so show some respect.
 
Nobody is obsessing over God. In fact, if theists would keep all their irrational crap to themselves, keep it out of the schools, keep it out of the political arena, atheists would have no reason whatsoever to ever bring it up.

Want to know who to blame? Look in the mirror.

See, you just can't help yourself. You keep obsessing over God. You're not a true atheist, you're a Godhater. Big difference between the two.
 
If it weren't for religion, millions of people like you would be dead already to murder, so show some respect.

So that's why religion is so OVER-REPRESENTED in prison populations and atheism so UNDER-REPRESENTED, huh? :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom