Surely you mean "tenets", not tenants.

All those questions have been answered. You're not looking at the blog completely.
I'm just trying to help those who can't see the answers. But I'm done.

What is it that you want Tdechaine? An argument? An agreement? Comfort? You don't seem to be comprehending what people are saying? What is the answer you are looking for? First communicate clearly. What idea of God are you talking about? What do you mean by God? Why would you love Ayn rand? Are you talking about her philosophy? Is your question "can you believe in objectivism and believe in god? Until you have a clear question and communication, this entire conversation is futile.

LOL

You got the wrong guy. I'm an Obj.ist. No religion.

It certainly is when you suggest that "rational" is subjective.

You either do not understand Objectivism or are delusional and so are your point givers. The very foundation of Objectivism is a repudiation of irrationality, and high on the list of that repudiation is religion. You certainly can follow the tenets of Objectivism and religion, but you will find yourself breaking another tenet which is non contradiction. In order to be honest, as I see it, you must either drop the religion and be an Objectivist, or incorporate the tenets of Objectivism into your religion. Get off the see-saw. Believing both at the same time negates them both, or else settle for the tdechaine religion.

Open hostility? Vehement hostility would be a more accurate characterization. She found religion to be one of the foremost exponents of irrationality, she never wavered or softened her position as far as I could tell.

All things can coexist, just as all things can be opposites, cancel out one another be poison to one and delicious to another. The rational persons will decide for themselves which is good or bad, rational or irrational, etc. This discussion is winding down into reductio ad absurdum.

I have always thought of religiosity as being devoted to a strongly held concept. But that devotion doesn't include rationality, therefore cannot be held by an Objectivist without contradiction.

That's obvious except to all the non-Obl.s on this blog. Too much conversation about nothing.

An Objectivist cannot believe in God since Objectivism disavows the belief in the irrational. If you allow an irrational belief into your life, you are then open to any other irrational idea that you are introduced to.

Absurd. You were making stuff up....
Mysticism vs Obj.ism - can't you keep it to that question?

Quit playing with words. It's about mysticism in all forms.
Yes, an Ob.ist has to accept and practice all of Rand's principles. Do those don't and can't change; she created the philosophy and named it.
John Galt is the depiction of one who fully lives by her principles; he is fictional but the ideal for one to strive to become.

It was clear in the article - get real.
Don't drop the context.

Yes that is what the Church said when it was known that the earth was flat and the sun orbited around the earth. According to you no progress would ever be made.

There are Christians that refuse to believe Christ died on the cross to pay for their sins. Are they not "real" Christians, because of this?

What is an Objectivist? Is it one who follows ALL Ayn Rand's principles, to the letter, or can it be one who uses his or her reason to deny one or two of them? Don't Objectivist principles ever change? After all...they had to begin somewhere.

John Galt does not exist...he can't. The human being, regardless of how hard one tries, can never achieve perfection in any discipline...even Objectivism.

Ironic - a religious book attempting to downplay the mysticism of religion. Clearly that is not the way it is being used and has no place in this blog.
The whole premise in the article deals with mysticism, not some concocted definition of religion.

It was not "Do you Respect Any Rand" or "Dou love Ayn Rand's phlosophy?" It was can you love God and love Ayn rand. That is not a clear cup question. To love Ayn Rand, eans all aspects of her life. To love her philosophy, no issue, absolutely. If a preachers asks if you love "his" god, which is often what they say, they really mean do you love their way of defining God, which varies from religion and sects to others..I thik even Rand would want the question narrowed and clarified, and the addendum of this is about altruism, further complicates it.

I hope at least some of you looked at the link. Here is the reference: "To be religious is to is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern."
From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by
Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1

Have you never hear some one refer to things like "watching football every Sunday religiously". Religious has for a long time been exactly what is stated in the cited quote. If you chose to use a very limited definition of the term, you miss the bigger picture. Here in St. Louis there is a group of people who call themselves Objecivists who are probably more religious then most Catholics. I can't help it if people insist on incorrectly interjecting the supernatural, mystical, and stupid into the concept of what it means to be religious. I included the link in the hope that people would read it before making these sorts of comments. There is nothing abnormal, Orwellian, or mystical in what I wrote.

You can't redefine it to mean anything. Mysticism is what it is - call it religion or whatever.

It's a given they are opposed. We're talking any form of mysticism....

Yes, that's why I said some tenants...and not if you are an Obj.ist.

Scientists can be irrational too.
Your belief may not be affected...but you are not an Objectivist. That is based on definitions and what we know today - which is all you can base anything on.

We're talking about any form of mysticism as being opposed to Objectivism.
I don't know why you bring AR personal life into this; but she certainly lived by her own philosophy.