"If there's a contradiction check your premises - at least one of them is wrong" if you accept self-sacrificial morality as premise to build your values on, then us self-aggrandizing objectivists are just as delusional as the extremists of any religion "Either - Or ... make a choice and live with it's consequences" if you choose religion you embrace all it's consequences and defend them, as you defend the premise you build your values on - and if those weasel-worders throw Any Rand at you, you damn her to hell - got it! "A is A" in a christian world it's easier and more comfortable to live as a christian - so what are you zealots of the individual and the mind keep gibbering about? reality proves you wrong! This is not just sarcasm - it has a grain of truth insofar, that their 'logic' is correct if they consistently base it on premises they value and stick to their choices to make the world as they wish it to be. Granted some most of that is just wishful thinking, but isn't it also just wishful thinking on my part that the capability of being a rational animal makes humans rational, gives them merit as members of a valuable species? If we were to radically reverse worldviews basing them solely on rational selfishness wouldn't a large majority, currently kept alive solely by communal sacrifice, simply die out? Same as the religious extremists argue to purge their world of us unwanted members of the flock? Examples of that 'common ground' abound ... it's a war and no matter how politely you dress it up there's still a club behind their arguments that, depending on your constitution, will make you extinct. No surprise then that any attack or defense are seen as extreme or considerate depending on the constitution of the attacked, not the attacker. The one religion I encountered and that I'm still meeting with respect is buddhism. They have no need for threats of an afterlife or threats in a present life - they don't 'spread the word' with zealotry but with conviction. But this is not about 'choosing the lesser weevil' - just an example of choice, of 'non-initiation-of-force'. So if you value a part of a religion or a person subscribing to that religion, you'll meet them halfway telling them the flying elephant they saw on Disney channel is at least a possibility, but wouldn't it be nice to meet it's real cousins in Africa? It's your value you wish to obtain by allowing this (temporary?) softening of your premise, if the value you wish to obtain merits the resulting contradiction, as the sick would otherwise not survive your medical treatment. Your choice ... all the other parts of religion are 'initiation of force' and I'm 100% with you - bring out the clubs :D
| 
