Religion has a lot of elements in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, but one of them is the mysticism as essential. Social fads emotionally clung to can serve a similar role as religion but are not philosophically religion. Science is not a religious "ism" or anything like it.

The songs, scriptures and holidays have a ritualistic meaning but there is much more than that. They do believe in a god, a lot of the mythology, and the ethical standards which lead to constant guilt because they are impossible to follow. That in turn often leads to religious on Sundays (along with a lot of ritual and socializing) and ignoring it the rest of the week, except when something dramatic and personal happens in which case they wallow in it for awhile.

Religion is no longer intellectually controversial, being mostly gone except for some cultures, especially primitives around the world who don't count as intellectual.

The trend of leaning towards science is good -- the progress it has brought in such a brief time relative to the millennia of primitivism preceding it has been spectacular. But science has been undermined by bad philosophy holding back understanding.

Part of that is ethics, with altruism and collectivism still retained without basis. Modern ethics is rationalization of variations on previous religious ethics, and when spread will be no better -- other than a more worldly view --unless the fundamental outlook is changed. So in that sense you are right that it almost doesn't matter. What does matter is a move to a this world, life on earth, view as at least a start.

For the same reason you shouldn't concern yourself with religionists not understanding their own sacred text. It's so contradictory that the details don't matter. There are more important things to pursue.

Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff recommended to read the Bible because it has been so influential, so your current project is good education.

Whether or not people over time choose Objectivism for their ethics depends first on their understanding that it exists as something fundamentally different and understanding it. The best that you can do for yourself is to make sure you understand it very well.

If it has no meaning in reality and/or has no evidence then it's not knowledge and has no place cluttering one's mind. That's not "condemning", just rejecting the cognitively worthless and ignoring it as irrelevant -- the epistemological equivalent of Howard Roark's "But I don't think of you". The damage of doing otherwise is allowing arbitrary method into thinking and nonsense corrupting the contents of your knowledge.

But "falsibiability" is no standard. It was all Karl Popper had left in his epistemological negativism.

I did not say you are "insulting the masses". I defend Ayn Rand's principles for good reason. It's what this forum was supposed to pursue. It's not the snide "Oh defender of the Gulch".

The history of claims of divine intervention is a history of the claims and nothing more. Collective subjectivism is not objectivity and neither are the primitive "major religions" and their sacred texts. Historical evidence for the existence of ancient peoples and some of the mythology does not validate their beliefs.

On the positive side, some of the accomplishments of Ancient Greece, the scientific revolution, and Ayn Rand's culmination of a philosophy of reason provide principles for how the individual can know and properly act based on his own understanding of the reality he perceives.

No, a better set of ten rules was suggested by philosopher Bertrand Russell

1: Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.

2: Do not think it worthwhile to produce belief by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.

3: Never try to discourage thinking, for you are sure to succeed.

4: When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.

5: Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.

6: Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.

7: Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

8: Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

9: Be scrupulously truthful, even when truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.

10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.

I was speaking about the Judeo-Christian God since that's pretty popular. I greatly admire the Tao te Ching and understand where you're coming from! In my household, we call it "IT." :)

I'll need to look up all those big terms haha, thanks for the homework! ( <-- I don't mean this in jest)

In my view humanity will always be flawed. I don't give a damn if everyone is religious, because I doubt the majority of humans would replace religion with something better. I'm currently reading the Bible (non-religious reasons) and often get really bent towards believers who don't know a damn thing about their God. Sometimes I just want to scream at them, because even in face of what they believe they lack any reaction. They won't change. At least not in a brief time span. I wish I could articulate how I truly feel but I can't through the computer. People are leaning more and more towards science rather than religion. The issue is what standard of value will replace the "God" in their moralities. I hope they choose Objectivism, but who knows? It is a good topic... But I see it as a dead-end if you know what I mean ;) I don't think it should have been down-voted or met with so much anger... but it's to be expected. Religion is extremely controversial haha.

"You don't need to devise a "test" for arbitrary claims in order to reject them as cognitively worthless. "
If someone gets something from religious mythology, something non-falsifiable by reason, I see no reason to condemn.

"Doesn't religion by definition require you to make falsifiable claims?"
I think for many people religion is a set of songs, scriptures, and holidays that connect them with how their ancestors tried to understand the world. It doesn't mean they themselves use the stories literally to understand the world.

lol, it's a role you choose to put on yourself time and again. Notice you are the only one saying I'm insulting the masses here.

The claim of divine intervention by the soldiers was written into history. While the history doesn't make it divine intervention, it is history and divine intervention was those witnesses perception.

The same can be said, exact same historical context, for the life of Jesus Christ. Any belief more than that, what people said He did, is faith. Even so, He is a piece of history recognized by 3 major world religions and the historical content of the places and times has been validated to be real.

Claims of "divine intervention" are not evidence of the supernatural.

"Oh defender of the Gulch" is another of your snide sneers.

Here is the problem with that: "However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion". Wikipedia...can't believe I went there. But, lets just say its a set of ethics, behaviors and world views...not all religions make such claims as you asked. Like the isms I suggested act like a religion.

Those there, dozens on either side, claimed divine intervention. I'm just repeating what they said. The same could be said for the apostles, no? Yet you would call one history and one fallacy?

I have accused anyone oh defender of the Gulch. I simpky spoke of my personal experieces, some stemming from you.

Religious faith is not about "timing".

Any religious person may be "more reasonable than one may think" if he is able to compartmentalize and not corrupt his thinking in at least some important areas.

The Jews and Hebrews are much more straight forward and reasonable than people think. Ask a Rabi about miracles and he will tell you they are Natural events, but what makes them miraculous is the timing. Leaving the question to ponder, and the answer,.. to the observer and the reader.

So many things in history came down to timing...it hurts one or a nation not, to consider their good fortune in a time of great need.
In my opinion, it is no less objective to admit the outcome was beyond any human action or fore knowledge.

Historical events are not evidence of the supernatural. No one has said "we know all". Knowledge does not mean omniscience. Making assertions requires evidence, including assertions of supernatural "possibility". Rejecting the arbitrary as cognitively worthless is not "intellectually dishonest". Stop accusing people here of dishonesty for rejecting your pronouncements. It isn't honest.

and thereby excludes wisdom? Experiences of others passed down by word of mouth and in text?

Regardless of what anyone says, Rand included, at the very least there is archeological proof of events and people of the time who put their quill (?) to paper for posterity. Do we discount those because what they have seen is too much for contemporary reason to believe?

In 1812 as DC was being sacked by the British, literally burning the city to the ground, Dolly Madison and a band of soldiers stayed behind at the White House to gather and rescue documents precious to our Nation. As they were fleeing the British were hot on their tail as the city literally burned around them (the White House too) when a torrential rain came from nowhere, so heavy they could barely see 6 feet ahead of them, and halted the British from advancing while simultaneously quelled the fires.The First Lady escaped, DC didn't burn entirely.

A miracle. Not the storm but the precise timing of the sudden storm. And before your cast doubts on my claim,many personal journals from the British soldiers and the Americans soldiers who were there claim that this was God acting to protect the fledgling nation. You can read these journals at the Library of congress or the British Library - eye witness accounts and personal text on two continents.

If we can't take word of mouth, experience and the written word, do we then doubt the veracity of the Constitution? The Magna Carta? Isn't what you're contending just another flavor of 'flat earth' argument or perhaps the global climate change hockey stick?

My point, you cannot discount something just because it defies your degree of understanding or desire to comprehend in a specific an certain way. To think we know all, or even very much about what is, is foolhardy and naive. To deny the possibility is, as I said many times, when you cannot possibly know is dishonest intellectually.

Of course such injustices occur. What is the point in the context of what you are replying to?

No. The notion of duties is antithetical to morality. We have discussed this previously in connection with Ayn Rand's article "Causality versus Duty". No duties are a "good set of rules". Morality requires rational choice, not commandments. And most of the reglion-based Ten Commandments are destructive no matter how they are construed.

We all read books and enjoy reading about brave people. But, did you ever really stop to think how it would feel to be in a courtroom with hostile people (including the Judge), surrounding you and no one there to back you except your attorney? You know you broke no laws. But that doesn't matter.

Yes it's incompatible with religion. Ayn Rand said to make our own happiness, not 'heaven', which is only metaphorical for that. "To each his own" in the sense that each individual must choose for himself, but not in the sense that it's just as good no matter what the choice. The nature of man's life is the standard of value, the goal is each individual's own happiness, which cannot be attained arbitrarily. But it was a good topic to raise for discussion and did not deserve the mindless 'downvoting' from militant anti-intellectuals here.

You should read the non-fiction. "Falsifiability" is not the standard of reason. You don't need to devise a "test" for arbitrary claims in order to reject them as cognitively worthless. Wishful thinking is not reason.

Yes.

The big problem of religion is its philosophical foundation of mysticism, not "organization". No organization could save it.

Objectivism is not religion and neither is what you disparage as "scientism". "Religion" has a philosophical meaning, which is not whatever you don't like. No one is "regulating" or "imposing" it, it has the meaning that Ayn Rand gave it when she formulated it. When you make pronouncements here that are rejected as irrational that is not "imposing" anything. Either you understand or you don't.