Absolutely possible. And we're not "followers" of Ayn, we're running alongside with common beliefs that are close enough to be together in our direction. Remember her quote about the smallest "minority" is the individual and we can never stop being that! lets remain all back up front and not be "following" anyone!

Advocate.

If you accept the primacy of existence, reality, and individual natural rights as well as reasoning over emotion, there's really no room for superstition, mysticism, or religion.

Agreeer. Compatriot. Comprehender. Not many of us are followers. We're simply people that recognized ourselves within the descriptions and reasoning offered in her philosophy and writings.

"understand, I am endorsing christianegoist"
I thought I was the only one who omitted key words when typing fast. I do it way too often.

I think it's possible to be a fan of Rand and be religious. If the religion tries to force or guilt alms out of people or if it makes scientifically falsifiable claims, though, the religion is not consistent with the view I took from AS and Fountainhead.

I think it is possible. I watched a couple of interviews Rand did with Phil Donahue. In one an audience member started a question by saying she used to be part of her cult. Rand asked Phil to move on and refused to answer the woman's question. Ayn Rand stated emphatically that Objectivism is not a cult. She made it clear that you were free to agree or disagree with her beliefs. She seemed to me to be saying you didn't have to blindly follow all of her beliefs.

Ayn Rand was an atheist by default. She knew the problem of whether the universe was created or has always existed had no solution. She said as much in an interview, I believe, with Mike Wallace. It should be on you tube.

no. cut and paste and you will find it. I think it's because I am outside the country. understand, I am endorsing christianegoist, just giving a reference to someone who is astute. I have enjoyed his site. :)

This is new to me. Thank you for the comment

You could still find many of her ideas compelling and accept them. Much of her political ideas could be accepted by Christians, for example. The conflict will invariably come with the primacy of existence metaphysics that she championed. There's no way to believe in any sort of supernatural existence while accepting this philosophy, as a consciousness couldn't exist before existence. So, understand that this is the conflict, and the reason she was an atheist. Feel free to accept other parts of her philosophy that you do agree with. Perhaps, someday you will accept the primacy of existence too, but I wouldn't say it's essential to be a fan, and certainly not essential to appreciate her work.

I did. Wrong answer.

Wrong.
Read my Post Script ! ;-)

I understand. Thanks

Said the 8th comment who dodged.

It is possible to find some common ground, but a true objectivist rejects mysticism. It's a conflict to reason.

I don't really want a debate; just want to know what people think, and maybe learn something. But I agree, no takers yet

Your first 7 comments completely 'dodged' your simple question.
Good luck getting a real debate...!

P.S. I think it is possible, also.

I think that was her point? ;-)

Honestly, help me pick a better word than follower. I'm trying to address what seems to be a real sticking point on this site, and, you see, I don't think it matters.

I also reject the word atheist. Lol

I have no problem with that. Please choose another word