Marx wrote how religion was the "Opium of the People", and Lenin expanded that to include that religion retards human development... Most left wing fanatics I know (and I've known a few) are deeply athiestic, and react strongly if you mention you have a religious preference over an athiestic one.

I wonder this... If Rand were, say, Orthodox Christian (as are many Russians) instead of Athiest, would you have to be Orthodox to understand and follow her beliefs and writings, to see her A=A as being correct?

Of course it is... while a lot of people who follow (OK, advocate) AR are athiests, it's not a foregone conclusion that you must be an Athiest to follow her writings or teachings... what's extremely difficult is to (a) be a follower of AR, (b) follow a religious belief, and then (c) declare that you have a religious belief to a group of athiests.

I don't know if you remember the ire my "born again athiest" comments have made among those who were easily offended by having their "rational belief system" questioned... it was not unlike telling a Fundie Christian that the "my way or the highway" religion they practice was wrong... opens the floodgates of prosthetylizing.

No, one does not *have* to be an athest to follow AR, no more than does one "have" to be an emigree from a once free country turned people's republic to know the soviet system is a system of looters and freeloaders.

One does NOT have to be a clone of Rand to adhere to and follow her rational discourse... People are people, and to like someone, to adhere to their sense of right and wrong, does not mean you have to *be* them. (Thank God, as I look awful in short hair!! :-) )

I have been an atheist long before I read any of Ayn Rand’s books. Ayn Rand described my philosophy much better than I could. I have long wandered how perfectly rational people can still believe in a mystic God. However I also believe we each have a right to our own beliefs. As long as it does no harm to me, then I have no problem with whether someone is religious or not. As has been said earlier, Objectivism is not all or nothing. Certain parts of this philosophy require one to not believe in mystics, but the vast majority does not. I say “live and let live”.

what have you learned? and of what you have learned do you agree with it? from what I have read there are a large number of participants that are in agreement as presented by A-is-A at the top of the discussion.

why aren't you at church? Objectivism rejects ALL religion and ALL mysticsm. It does not pick "winners" of mysticism

I used to say "All the value of religion was what was common to all. Everything else is window dressing."
While I agree with Zenphamy that if you really buy into the logical basis for Ayn's philosophy, it is impossible to simultaneously buy into mysticism. However, there are clearly shades of Libertarianism that embody much of Ayn's philosophy that are not completely contradicted by an unfounded belief.
I suppose the fine line is set by the definition of "follower", perhaps a poor choice of words.

Rand shows that existence is-- that is that A=A, and that there is cause and effect, in that order. The effect cannot precede the cause. The mind causes the machine to exist. The machine does not cause the mind. But what does cause the mind?

She posits that life is, and that it is different from matter. It is not formed of random piles of stone. Yet she seems to take for granted that life is causeless. To have no cause is to be outside of and unbound by time. Yet life is bound by time. To be unbound from time is to be apart from all that is. That is... The cause of time and space. She argues forcefully against the existence of God but perhaps has backed into a proof instead.

Good point

I agree with many other's who have already asserted that "follower" is an incorrect description of the people who hold similar a philosophical outlook as Ayn Rand's objectivism. I already had my way of viewing the world before I came across Ayn Rand's writings but after reading her works I found there were many others with a similar point of view. Ayn Rand basically gave us a way to quantify our world view, that hard work, productivity, combined with objective reasoning, produces value and it's every individual's right to profit from their own labor.

See, that is interesting to me that they consider her evil, and of course they would

Honestly, because I don't feel the need to defend my position. I was wanting to hear what other people thought, and I have already learned a couple of things I didn't know. My intent in this instance is to learn.

The basis of Objectivism is Man's nature as a being possessing volitional consciousness. I think one could believe that a God created Man with that nature, and accept that everything else Rand professed would still follow from that. One could not, of course, believe anything that any of the major religions say about God and Its relationship to Man.

On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil.

After I read the Fountainhead, I was shaken to the core of my being by what was revealed to me. By that time I had rejected the doctrines taught by any religious group, but I had not been able to answer to myself the question of a creator of the universe. I became an atheist after reading Nathaniel Branden's First Cause argument. It was such a relief!

Perhaps "admirer" would be a better choice?