We know that man, in this present form has been on this earth for many tens to hundred of thousands of years, and carries remnants of many other forms of life in his DNA. We know that we can see approximately 13.8b light years into the past and the Universe. We know the physics and chemistry of life in all it's known complexities. We know, that without intervention into our genetics that the natural life span of man is on average 70 years and the maximum about 120 years, less than a blip in the time of our planet. We know that there is more understanding and knowledge that we still have to learn. But we know that everything we've investigated and learned has been resolved down to things that can be measured in some manner by our senses. But in all of that there is no hint nor evidence of some unknowable entity, being, dimension, super-power, mystical place or state of being other than what we have and can perceive with our senses and reason.
I don't worry about or plan ahead past my death, though if I could extend my life for more years of experiences and knowledge, I would. But I will not waste a moment of this precious life on thoughts of some form of continuation past life with a super-being. And I would like to show the way to this philosophy and way of living to others such that they don't have to waste a micro-second of their lives trying to understand things of faith, magic, and superstition, or be swayed into ways of belief and living that diminishes their freedom and liberty to be happy, through teachings and propaganda about some nonsense afterlife and the super-being's rules to be followed in order to get there.

So, then if I understand John Galt's diatribe in Atlas Shrugged paraphrasing: that man (as a species) is the sole individual creative force (as opposed to any higher universal power). But, if there was a spiritual belief that would be acceptable to an Objectivist. Is it at all possible that Gnosticism work as a rational philosophy blended into Objectivism?
I know that in the Gospel of Thomas there are a number of Jesus said- phrases that seem to paralell what Galt says in his diatribe.

Your points are quite correct, Zenphamy.

As for what this has to do with Galt's message, the start of the thread was with regard to Galt Shrugged and Jesus Wept. Both are completely rational responses to a society that is completely messed up. The other reasonable responses include righteous indignation and moving to remedy the things that are wrong with that culture by both conventional and unconventional means. Interestingly, both Jesus and John Galt expressed righteous indignation and moved to change their respective cultures by quite unconventional means. While their world views and their premises were completely different, one can make a strong argument that Galt and Jesus had more in common than most Objectivists would care to admit.

One major difference between Galt and Jesus is that Galt's friends saved Galt from a torturous death, while Jesus' supposed friends abandoned him to a torturous death. This is one of Objectivism's strongest arguments against Christianity.

One possible response to a completely messed up is "to grin and bear it" in the hope that some day things will change for the better. I will call this the Dagny approach. I used to see this as a rational response, but the society is now too far gone for me to still see that as rational.

Thanks, khalling. I need to spend more time writing outside the Gulch.

An Objectivist society can work if admission requirements are sufficiently strict, and you are right that Robbie was wrong to use that argument against the principles and value of Objectivism.

Robbie's point was that the economy is diverse enough now that tearing down a few cornerstones like the leading steel, railroad, coal, and car manufacturers would be insufficient to bring down the looter/moocher society enough to cause a collapse. On that point, I think Robbie is probably correct.

Escaping to a permanent, isolated Gulch is in no one's best interest in the long term, but the waiting time for the complete collapse of societies as broad as America's is likely too long for most of us. That is why AS was 1162 pages. Just when you thought that the collapse just had to happen, it wouldn't, and the collapse would be superseded by yet another fiasco.

As for advocating suicide, that was not Jesus' message at all. Rightly or wrongly, he viewed this life as a temporary stop on a much longer life journey. He said that "his kingdom was not of this world". That is impossible to ascertain unequivocally at this point. He wanted his followers to experience "life to the fullest"; that is not suicide.

Of course they did, wood. That's why I added at the end "at least she put it in concrete form". I wasn't very clear.
They weren't religious, so I don't know where they got theirs from.
Morality always seemed logical and life-affirming to me.
Edit: clarity

Maybe science is asking the wrong questions? It happens...

You claim mythical being, I claim REAL being that does exist.

Or is it your contention that in this VAST massive huge universe we as humans are the only intelligent, or as some seem to imply the Most intelligent beings in the entire universe, or dimensions?

So your parents, mentors and adults who were a HUGE part of your life before you could even read had no bearing on your moral character?

If they did where did they get their from?

Cute :)

I actually heard that. went fishing today for rooster. didn't catch one but had a nibble. all the little kids were on the beach giving me advice

Naah, good FOR you.

I want to give you a point for this. but you know, Rand would not have been this irreverent. You realize she contemplated a priest as a character in AS?

it's your opinion. please remember that at the time Rand had no non-fiction. She developed her philosophy wile writing Atlas Shrugged. there is plenty of precedent for this. Voltaire in Candide, for example. almost all ancient greek authors. I can list a bunch of progs who have done it...but i won't

excellent points. You should do a post on CS Lewis. I'd be interested

no, owl. Objectivists reject the concept of a God. Objectivists deny the concept of "faith" no matter what

good enough for me

Where did you get that Jesus taught the 'give a fish, teach to fish' adage from?

Yes.

Excellent. +1

:)

As you say.

Yes!! +1

Science can indeed prove the concept, interactions, and predictions of effects of what is known as Gravity. What they can't do, through their current understanding based on a geometric point particle view of physics, is identify it as a force that can be manipulated and used as the other identified forces.

What science or any other discipline can't do is prove the concept, interactions, or predictions of effects of what is known as a god.

Indeed!