Would you agree the Ten Commandments are a pretty good set of rules to guide us?

You didn't. It isn't possible physically, but even in the metaphorical sense this is no Galt's Gulch. A lot of work was put into creating this forum, but it does not live up to its stated purpose, being mostly overrun by conservatives who have some affinity to Ayn Rand but little understanding of her philosophy. (There are also some other kinds of kooks who have squatted here.) Worse are the militant crusaders promoting nothing in common with Ayn Rand and who emotionally lash out when challenged. Their snide smears and other personal attacks shouldn't be permitted at all, but the guidelines are rarely enforced.

Mysticism isn't just heavily ingrained in religion, it is essential to it. But it is much more than a matter of 'polarizing' thinking away from the individual towards a 'common good/goal', which is a social context. It prevents all knowledge, on which an objective individual ethics depends, which in turn leaves people vulnerable to the altruism and collectivism, but also attacks scientific inquiry and the requirements for it.

Even Jesus was 'individualist' -- in the sense of advocating saving your own soul -- but the religion was entirely other worldly, focused on the supernatural and leaving no guidance for living on earth or even being motivated to do so. It promoted living for an otherworldly afterlife in accordance with duties imposed by mysticism. "Do unto others" here on earth was a distant second, only intended to serve the primary, supernatural goal.

When contradictions are attributed to God, which is often the case, that is the disproof. Otherwise no disproof is required to reject the arbitrary as cognitively worthless. The same goes for assertions of "possibility". That is not "intellectually dishonest".

At the root of it is Ayn Rand's entire approach to philosophy based on reason and objectivity. It rules out faith as a means of attaining knowledge.

Like life, I don't care if others are religious, only whether they seek to impose religious based arguments, particularly in legislation.

There are plenty of smart people that remain religious because they choose not to attempt to answer everything. Ignoring them is very much like ignoring the allegory of the Bible. It may not be based on logic, but if you look closely, there is wisdom there, and finding the gaps is enlightening.

Or an exercise in futility.

Proving a negative is a fools errand. Not to be bothered with.

Are you assuming "God" is a living entity? The ancients walked with creature they viewed as gods. they also claimed that planets, stars, even our earth were gods.
But perhaps, "God" is really just be nature or the culmination of physical laws that define existence itself and all the things in it...if that was the case, I'd call it "Causation".

Perhaps, the question should be defined in unicameral conscious terms instead of bicameral pre-conscious terms.

Many here don't agree, and that is fine, but in these matters I refer to the works of Julian Jaynes. Breakdown of the bicameral Brain. (he uses the the word mind...but the mind in not split in two, the mind is not physical- at least that we haven't found yet).

Welcome.
We have had these discussions here, mostly fruitful except for a few comments here and there.

The Big problem is "Religion" is only an organization of some teaching, while some or all of the teachings may have value or lessons to learn, the organization of those teachings seems to ruin the whole intent.

There are a whole lot of organizations these days we could put in that category like, environmentalism, global warming caused by man masquerading as climate change, socialism, communism, progressivism and post modernism...not to mention political correctness and the whole cultural marxist thing attached to post modernism...yes these are religions too, just as satanism, gaiaism or even sciencism and yes, for a few, it might be objectivism.
Objectivism is valuable but those that try to organize it, regulate it, impose it...ruin it too.

Well because objectivism and religion are not compatible. I can demonstrate it. It wouldn't matter in the end anyway because at the end of the day you will have to divorce your thinking from reason and turn to faith. There is no point in having faith in the existence of a living thing. God is special because it is that which has no evidence of existence and requires faith not reason to believe

My intention wasn't to come off arrogant. Apologies.

I agree with you on everything you said. Very well put. I thought your previous comments in this thread came off as arrogant. This comment didn't. I am not a member of the Rand personality cult and similarly dislike those who view her as infallible- as if she were the Pope.

I spent many years looking for answers. I can't say any one solution presents itself to completely address all things. Still, I have found what works for me.

One issue many here, objectivists generally, have is with the individual right to determine one's own beliefs. If it's not consistent a-z it simply can't be or isn't right. Life dictates that this is patently bullshit.

The irony is not lost on me, but I know for a fact it chafes some here when I say that some Objectists are fluent with a Rand reference(title, chapter and line) as the sharpest minister quoting scripture. That ability, Biblical or Objectivist doesn't end conversation or validate a point with me.
To me Rand was an American treasure, a visionary, but she does not hold all the answers or every thing.

So if God was easy to disprove- you would know? I'm not sure... that sounds like a very narrow view of things. Do you consider yourself God? Ahahahahahaa...

I do not go into this subject with people here, at least I haven't for many years (5-6), primarily because the arrogance gets ugly. As I said, I do not proselytize here or anywhere and everyone is entitled to their own belief. I disagree with Rand and Objectivism on this topic. You will not convince me differently nor will I convince you. What's the point?

Give me your definition of god and I'll show you how it conflicts with reality

Thin at best and highly a matter of perception. Still, you are entitled.

Ok, watch.

God cannot be observed, therefore god does not interact with existence, therefore god can only interact with nonexistence, therefore god does not exist.

Interesting way to say that. Still. I'd say that a very arrow view of things. I don't proselytize here or anywhere. Nor do I insist others believe or see things as I do. Still, if God were 'easy to disprove' I, for one, would have found that route with and acceptable and sustainable justification for believing so.

God is easy to disprove. Everything conflicts with god.

Doesn't religion by definition require you to make falsifiable claims?

I think religion and reason are compatible as long as religion does not make falsifiable claims. Claims about there being a creator with a specific purpose for the universe and humankind sound like wishful thinking to me, but I can't devise a test for them, so I don't see them being in conflict with reason. When they make specific claims about how creation occurred and religious miracles, that part is incompatible with reason.

I think this might be a minority view. I have only read one non-fiction book by Rand, so I can't speak for Objectivist theory.

In Objectivist Ethics, your life is your standard of value. I bet it would be considered incompatible, as Rand said man should create his own heavens. But to each their own.

First off, I'm a constitutional conservative. My experience here and with objectivists overall say that yes objectivism is incompatible with faith (I'm against organized religion). That said, again I'm a conservative, I believe it's one of the greatest flaws in Mrs. Rands philosophy.
There is no way to determine conclusively the existence or non existence of God. To say conclusively there is or isn't God (and all the surrounding subjects) is not rational. It is better, and more intellectually honest, to say I do not know and leave open the possibility than to say definitively no.

But that's only my take on the subject. As a conservative it's one of the areas objectivists and I do not agree.

My 2 bits

That's my view too, but this is an atlas society webpage and a video on metaphysics on here was downvoted into oblivion. I was confused to see this, plus Galts speech was hidden. I don't feel like I landed in an actual Galts Gulch.