'total proof'
From a search in this thread, this is an expression only used in the post above by HBD.

It should be 'it' (or It) rather than he or she. Now for those gods that identify as LGBTIQWERTY then there are approved words such as hir or hem or etc.

I think the genderisms are translations from Hebrew which does not have-gender neutral expressions as does English.

blarman says-
" Atheism openly declares there is no god and then goes on to say that there can be no proof."

Opinions and definitions of atheism by the religious may be misleading.
The word means only an absence of belief in god or gods or deities.
Objectivism goes further by denying belief as a source of knowledge and that believing has any merit.
The agnostic position of "I don't know" is like saying, 'I cannot be sure that there is not an invisible miniature elephant in this room'. Such statements are worthless and solipsistic. (I hope that is the word I wanted!).

Blarman says-
" ..atheism as a religion in and of itself."

No. An absence of some thing is not a type of that thing.

The problem is that when you have a religion of over a billion people even a small percentage of nut jobs is a lot of people.

Always welcomed :)

Your remarks could apply to faith as appears in a dictionary. I said explicitly what Faith I was talking about. Which is nonsense for someone without Faith... I know, this sounds now a Gordian knot.

Again, if any of the two positions was self evident, we wouldn't be discussing it.

Anyway, the answer to the original question remains: NO! An objectivist cannot be religious.

Re: " I look to God much as an invisible Father figure. Best case I am right and I get into Heaven. Worst case I get some psychological comfort from my faith." No, worst case is that God is an invisible Mother figure and you are denied entrance to Heaven for disrespecting Her gender.

Pascal's Wager doesn't work. Suppose you are worshiping the wrong god and are nothing but an infidel in the eyes of the real one? Believing in a particular god is no guarantee that you are going to make it to Heaven.

I haven't tentatively effected my vital adjustments of whatever I have reacted to lately, so I guess I'm not religious. Thank you for the opportunity to clear up my definitions! :-)

He was responding to me, not you and I said that he was hedging his bets, not me.

I see yet another proselytizer that is on the wrong web site. This is a site for discussion of the ideas of Ayn Rand. If you are unable to do that then you should spend your time elsewhere; we'd both be happier. If happiness is your goal, that is.

Hear hear!

I haven’t read The Problem of Pain, but most commentators on the book (pro and con) say that you have to be a believing Christian to some extent in order to agree with the book’s premises and conclusions. I did come across this excerpt from the book, regarding animal suffering:

"So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it. At the same time we must never allow the problem of animal suffering to become the centre of the problem of pain; not because it is unimportant - whatever furnishes plausible grounds for questioning the goodness of God is very important indeed - but because it is outside the range of our knowledge. God has given us data which enable us, in some degree, to understand our own suffering: He has given us no such data about beasts."

If the rest of the book is as evasive and dismissive as this passage regarding such a serious objection to God’s alleged goodness and mercy, I’m not impressed.

Hello, Ichthys,
"... nothing in that definition says "against reason". ..."
If not "against", I would argue "beside" or "outside" reason.
I would also argue that the history of religiosity (to make it more general than any particular religion) shows good evidence that Gods are human inventions.
I hope that you do not mind my intruding into your conversation with CBJ.
Best wishes.
Maritimus

Try this as an alternative explanation: "Had Ayn Rand been given more time, and the opportunity to experience Communism, she would have revised her definition of Objectivism. She just wasn't lucky enough to encounter Karl Marx, that's all. Everything she was, and all that she contributed to society were gifts from the Proletariat. Her mortality speaks of her human condition, and that, was determined by the selfless sacrifice of others. Knowledge is a gift from the Collective. Use it!"

Your first phrase expresses a reservation whether I'm using reversal causality or not. Well, I would agree 100% most of the time except for this particular case. You're coming back to the infinite regress... I already offered my stopping point. The only being that has this characteristic of existing by itself is God. For the rest, I agree with you: they need to exist first before anything else. But before taking the step of recognizing that Entity, we fully agree. As I said before, it is a matter of choice, but it is not against reason either of them.

If either the existence of God or the non existence of God was a self evident truth, one of us was irremediably stubborn, irrational, dumb or all of the above. As I recognized in you a rational and thinking personality, and I guess you did somehow the same, let's agree to disagree on our choices just after the fact that we both agree on: existence exists. I chose to ask why so and found God. Now religion is another thing that I will spare for this thread.

A good reading from a former atheist and converted to christianity is The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. The first chapter starts explaining why he didn't believe in God and uses the same arguments to say the opposite. Interesting. Thanks for a good exchange.

It is the positive assertion which must be proved.
Which is the epistemological root of the legal
principle "innocent until proven guilty".

The more secular aspect of religion in this country, practiced by most all professing a faith (aside from islam) stands apart from radicalism or even steadfast myopic devoutness. In this way a bridge can be made, concessions if you would, between people having faith in there being something more and objectism (what there is).

Who here does not have the legitimate right to determine their own code, their own ethics, what sources they derive their ethos from? Which individual has a right to tell another what they should and shouldn't believe or how and where they have a right to fit in?

You should not call.... bah, you should not dictate.

No, I'm not an objectivist but my path crosses with the objectism quite a bit. I'm a Constitutional Conservative and, I know who I am and why I believe as I do.

have it me.