Sure!
I was born evangelical, gave that up at age 18, and by age 24 I had read Atlas Shrugged 3 times and bought several others by Ayn Rand. At that time I revelled in Rand's attacks on mysticism and decided I was an aethist; all that was long ago about 1964. My view has somewhat tempered these days so I consider myself agnostic -- "don't know, can't know, so why bother?"

That said, even to this day I see Blind Faith as a lazy and unreasoned way to run the railroad. I view still that Ayn Rand was right about mysticism.

Of course.

yes we call you vile names. what nonsense!

dansail, the Soul of Atlas was written by John Aglialaro's stepson, Mark Henderson, http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Atlas-Christi.... JA is the executive producer behind the AS movies and this site. :)

As much as AR liked to disagree with those who agreed with 95% of the same things as she did, if AR were next to Jesus, she would be in her own personal hell, pretty far down in terms of Dante's levels.

I go farther back than the creation "Oorah!"
I could not help but look on with scoffing amusement when ancient Spartans repeatedly shouted that in the 300 flick.
300 is historically inaccurate on several levels but still comic book fantasy OK for entertaining..
The sequel is just plain baa-aaad!"

religion and objectivism are incompatible. it is one or the other. you cannot have both. objectivism is a complete philosophic system. to continue to believe in god and faith is to reject the metaphysical and epistimological base of objectivism and you will wind up being frustrated by why the philosophy doesn't work.

your answer is incorrect. Atheism is not a philosophy. There is no one or the other . Atheists reject the concept of God. Objectivism rejects the concept of god and all mystical concepts which deny or reject reason and logic.

1.what is your definition of "spiritual"? to me it implies ritual and denial of the physical. >not Objectivist
2. yes people are "organic." Death is a reality. There is no empirical evidence for reincarnation
3. 70% of the population believe in reincarnation. cite and how is that objective proof of anything?
4."the Judeo-Christian God is rather simplistic"> a complicated god is more valid?
5. all over the map here.> this is an Objectivist site.

Again, as above, existence by definition is a word to describe what is. It isn't a thing or an effect or an event--just what is, what is known. There is no definition for 'what is not' except nothing, and trying to talk about 'what is not' is nonsense, anti-sense, no sense.

Existence is the word we use to describe what is. Only what is can be a cause leading to an event or effect. Why do you want to try to find what was before what is, nothing-there can not be nothing, or go to somewhere that is not? AR doesn't 'take for granted that life is causeless', she says that it exists, it is. Time is simply a human measure of change, of movement, it is not a thing or to be within.

What you're sounding like is someone trying to define 'infinity.' Infinity by definition has no measure. You are simply refusing to accept definitions, which leads to gobbledygook. Without 'A=A', we can have no communication.

Semper Fi Dino

What I’m getting at, and this is also described by Rex Little above. “The basis of Objectivism is Man's nature as a being possessing volitional consciousness.” is that the question could be “Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and also be an atheist?"

And my answer would be “No.”

An atheist doesnt "believe" without proof. BUT, if some proof of something that formed the universe and somehow looks over and down on it, WELL the subject is open again and the atheist can indeed change his mind. Until then, I just dont get any of the religions, and certainly dont want to sacrifice my life for something in some book that one has to 'believe".

Agreed:

I believe the Mud expression is used, by those who have religious believes, to describe those who don’t.

As to the concept of God; one could believe in man as a spiritual being and still not believe in an omnipotent god above them. Does Buddhism, for example, believe in a Supreme Being?

There are many varieties of beliefs that acknowledge existence beyond the organic person of this immediate live. Over 70% of the world’s population believe in reincarnation. Compared to many belief systems, the Judeo-Christian god is rather simplistic. Perhaps that is why we here are all over the map on this.

As someone who was a Bible scholar before being introduced to Ayn Rand and thanks to this wonderful prophetess and philosopher being freed from the bonds of thinking in concretes, I can attest to the fact that you are actually double-blessed as a believer and student of Ayn.
Atheists make only two basic mistakes: 1. They confuse God and religion (God is a mind...not a man-made product) and 2. They confuse the product of this mind with the product derived from the product of a mind (the creative process of eventually making beings like yourself over a period of time that only a timeless being can think through).
Other than that, Ayn Rand has it right. It would shock me if she wasn't at the right hand of Jesus.

Only if she's on Facebook from the grave. ;-b

He is more than just a jumble of biological cells because he creates and experiences and processes and orders. His thoughts and creations are unique to his specific experience. His rights come from his existence first and taking ownership of himself second.
Atheism is not a philosophy. It does not recognize anything. It rejects the concept of God. I am unfamiliar with the phrase about mud. Sounds like something someone who is religious would say

".......... is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe."

This is the crucial point of "existence exists".......what AR termed "out there"...........it is not "how" it is but "that" it is.........and life requires that it (existence) be dealt with accurately to sustain life (if one so desires)........the next step is epistemology.........

Absolutely. The missing puzzle piece is this - being your own "mystic of spirit". If lead by the Holy Spirit, it removes subservience to others from the equation. (Assuming of course that 'free will' is a part of ones belief system)

Of course you can, well, almost. After all, she died before Twitter. But, jumping that barrier, one must ask what "follow" means in the context. If it means be an Objectivist, the answer is no. If it means I like a lot of what she says, the the answer is yes. the question is too general.

yes, I meant to say "not endorsing" but I do appreciate some of his posts