Some abnormal use of "religion" does not change the answer to the main question.

Are you trying to say something relevant to the main question here?

One can only draw conclusions from what is known. It is worthless to project as you are.

So, in order to make it possible for religion and Objectivism co-exist it is necessary to redefine what "religion" means? Shades of George Orwell!

I take the question as a singular "you" since I have no idea of what those other yous are capable. For me the answer is no. If the question were whether an Objectivist can have friends who are theists, I would look at the definition of 'friend' that I like the most. I prefer the way Aristotle put it in the Nicomechean ethics:
"Therefore, since each of these characteristics belongs to the good man in relation to himself, and he is related to his friend as to himself (for his friend is another self), friendship too is thought to be one of these attributes, and those who have these attributes to be friends. Whether there is or is not friendship between a man and himself is a question we may dismiss for the present; there would seem to be friendship in so far as he is two or more, to judge from the afore-mentioned attributes of friendship, and from the fact that the extreme of friendship is likened to one's love for oneself." from
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nic...

Because of differences in understanding, it is near impossible to have another self friendship. So I have tend to have acquaintances who usually have theistic beliefs and just a modicum of rationality to keep them sane.
Since Objectivism requires that one believe only what can be defined from existence and since a god belief would need some kind of evidence for existence other than just a mental feeling or emotion or an abstraction about 'nothingness' needing a god thing to produce existence, it would be impossible for me to be an Objectivist (open version) and a theist at the same time without going insane.

God? To which of the almost 5,000 gods humans have grovelled before do you refer?

To answer your question, i do; therefore, the answer must be yes.

I think what you are really asking is if the ideas of Ayn Rand and Christianity are opposed? And to answer that I would have to say that it depends on how you approach Christianity. If you see Christianity as a religion of simpering fools who always turn the other cheek and practice self sacrifice to the point of martyrdom. Then no obviously not. I was raised in a household where the Warriors of God were uplifted. I believe in forgiveness but NEVER forget.

I could go on for quite awhile but I personally find that Christianity and Ayn Rand go very well together.

Your last sentence; the answer is if you do you are not an Objectivist.

I would have to answer "yes", since I've also read of a number of scientists who believe in God...whether or not that makes them guilty of some sort of hypocrisy, I don't know.

Personally, my belief in God (or not) remains unaffected by Rand's works. Everyone knows her books, like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were fiction and, as such, have no direct impact in the debate over religion.

Besides, Christians would believe Ayn Rand to be a child of God (regardless of her own beliefs) and, therefore, doing God's work...even in the establishment of Objectivism.

The way I see it, there is no right or wrong answer to this question as the only way to prove the answer is for the questioner to die and find out. Not exactly my first choice for a research project.

Sure you can. But you certainly would not be an Objectivist. The human brain is a marvelous organ that will allow your consciousness to hold myriads of contradictions. However, fantasy is not reality. (Unless you're a quantum physicist trying to explain the universe.)

I think too often when we say God, we mean Christianity, and even then multiple belief systems.. We mean the doctrines of each religion. Some religions are not very Godly today. However, we need to ask what version of God we would be loving. We also cannot say we love Ayn Rand, rather Objectivism. I am all in with her doctrines, but not everything about her personal life. Until we define the terms, we really cannot answer that. We have to ask what our idea of God entails and limit the other to Objectivisim.

I invite you to delve deeper into what it means to be 'religious.' Many people think being religious means believing in a god or gods, but that is not so. A more accurate definition of religious is found at: http://www.church-of-reason.us/ Even though we generally do not use the term, many objectivists are in fact religious.

Good article in the WSJ on this the other day.

I would say "no".

However, no one is perfect, and unless they go so far as to impose their views on me by force or legislation, I'd rather pick another fight since just reading Rand provides enough common ground for a good discussion over beer.

I suggest you get a copy of THE AYN RAND LEXICON and read her definition of love. It is quite lengthy but if you are an objectivist it is worth reading. Also the book is an excellent reference book for those who happen not to be objectivists and maybe as a result of reading it one will become an objectivist.

If your premise is wrong then all that follows is wrong. The common picture of religion and God is your premise. What if our society put up a false religion and God? If a hero is called a dictator do we rejects all actual heros? What if the entire picture of God is wrong? What if one has thrown out reality together with throwing out what is based on the false perception?
What if there actually exists something that is not what we have been conditioned to regard as as God? What if Religions have gotten it wrong? Do we reject actual practices or rituals that are correct and in line with reality?

Keep an open mind. We confuse our brain's image of reality with objective reality. Be careful.

It is more accurate to say the the Current false view of Regions and the picture of what constitutes God is not compatible with objectivism. However the universe is still mostly unknown. Is the Universe itself intelligent? Some scientists think so or otherwise intelligence could not arise.

How do complex systems, that require many parts, none of which are individually useful to evolutionary selection, and programming of chemical reactions, timing etc. arise without a built in intelligence that seeks out complexity?

There are many questions whose answers might surprise you. Instead of arguing compatibility of false notions, let's agree that the notions are false or incomplete and find the truth and reality. first.

Doubt it was the secret down voting troll this time.
Me dino came back to further laugh at the boohoohoo LOL post I fully expected to see a 0 on downstairs.
Even came back with the triangle symbol (on a war flag) representing misfit who is my favorite Seven Samurai character.
https://www.google.com/search?q=seven...

See my last post below

hear hear

You can do/believe anything you want as long as it does not initiate force or fraud and it makes you comfortable. Sometimes, a little irrational thought can be fun. But you have to recognize the value of being a bit irrational.

You can do/believe anything you want as long as it does not initiate force or fraud and it makes you comfortable. Sometimes, a little irrational thought can be fun.

the difference between "god " and ayn Rand is that she was a living person but "god" is who,or what?

But that does not involve religion.
See my last post below to get the essence of the original post.

I posted this in part to see how others would interpret the author. It was clear to me that she was asking "can one be an Objectivist and believe in god"; and the answer, by definition, is NO.
But if you think she was asking "can one accept some tenants of Rand's philosophy and believe in God, then YES.

"God" is a vague concept that is depends on faith to feel it. Religious leaders use the term because it limits discussion as to the nature of God and makes us choose between blind belief or excommunication.

Personally, I prefer the (also vague) concept of Spirituality. It leaves room for many individual perspectives but encompasses a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and typically involves a search for meaning in life. It is very personal and you either feel it or you don't. If you don't you are not chastised for it since it is so personal. Just my thoughts.

Fair enough. I can respect differences. I tend to focus on the Constitutional philosophy of the United States, or what it was.