Amen to that! (pun intended)

(Just a note, but I think when you wrote "antithesism" above you meant "anti-theism" without the extra "s". An "antithesis" is an opponent in general. To make that into an -ism would be merely to create someone who opposes everything - not just a specific tenet or belief.)

Most of the atheists I have dealt with make no differentiation between what you are calling hard anti-theism vs soft atheism and what I am differentiating by naming them atheists and agnostics. Call it semantics, but I think we agree. I take people at their word when they say they are atheists and their faith is to deny that there is even a possibility that a god could exist.

"In the god existence debate, there are only two outcomes, either they do or they don't."

Yup. Binary outcome. Existence is - or isn't. No halfway states (boy - wouldn't that make things confusing ;)

"However, in any debate you only argue one side of the issue."

Some choose to focus on one, but there are always two sides. Debates always deal with merit or value, which must always be a comparison of one thing against another. Thus two must always exist for debate to be possible. ;) I would also caution against the method in which you would set up the argument. Courts and juries aren't called "opinions" for nothing. I would suggest that a more definitive and objective method is to apply the scientific method: postulate a position, design a test, execute the test, examine the results, check to see if the test was executed properly.

I like your description of the options, but I would skip the editorializing about what other people have or have not done or proof they claim to have but which you may deny. Opinion isn't fact, and speaking for what others may or may not have done in such a broad context would force you into the unenviable position of knowing enough to put you in the position of "god". It's again one of the reasons why I think it much safer just to go with the agnostic position. Then you allow the truth to be what it is.

Pascal's Wager

Doesn't deserve a down vote. +1

Doesn't deserve a down vote. +1

I was raised Catholic. I even still attend Mass. But I do so for the social benefits it provides and because I enjoy hearing the historical context of the readings, not because I'm afraid that I'll go to hell if I don't.

Doesn't deserve a down vote. +1

I appreciate the qualifier Lucky, :)

It depends on the religion -- Buddhism might work. But belief in a supreme being who is moved by the prayers of his creations strikes me as inherently irrational.

Scintia; Your original question was "Can on Objectivist be Religious". You now raise a separate and totally different question: "Can Objectivists and Reglionists co-exist".

To the first question and my response: Objectivism holds that all knowledge can only be based on reality and life lived in this reality--that knowledge derived from mysticism/supernatural/revelation is not knowledge, but is supposition/imagination at best, either one's own or someone else's. So, No, an Objectivist can not be a Religionist, and again, the question denies one of an Objectivist most basic starting points in the use of his mind.

To your second question: Of course, Objectivism and religions can co-exist. They do now. But such co-existence is not based on commonalities or similarities--it's based on Objectivism's refusal to initiate force for any reason or cause, and the necessities of life.

As to " reverence for those who work for their wages and their happiness" and "respect for human beings": I, as a proclaimed Objectivist, only respect those of the human race that use reason. I hold absolutely no respect for those of my race that either can't or won't use reason. Such, to me, are not much different than the other animals of this life. As to reverence, that's only an exaggerated respect, I reserve that word for the accomplishments/ inventions of men of the mind that have bettered the existence of all humanity on this Earth, usually accomplished at peril to themselves and with great opposition from the institutions of the time.

Please don't take my responses as denigrating your questions, particularly if they're honest and well thought out. Sometimes, my responses can be taken as acerbic and too curt, but these questions, in one form or the other, have been asked so many times on this site that it's become somewhat routine and even tiring at times to respond to them. But again, if the question or response is honest and well thought out, I'll always gladly respond with sincerity. Though, I must caution that I take those two qualifiers as very important.

By the way, welcome to the site and keep posting.

Oh, yeah! This topic becomes a war zone almost every time it's regurgitated.

Past experiences have led me to believe in God spelled with a respectful capital "G."
May be against board rules for me to write further about that.

I was being somewhat general. The definition of religion is so vague that its hard to actually answer the question that was posed.

Someone else did so I added it back, and yes, term, cut it out! Yoiu know better.

That was not my intention. I expected to get many succinct reasons for the atheistic stance of Objectivism. Instead it turned into a war zone.

Which you succeed at admirably. The Bill of Rights does not confer any "rights" to anyone; they identify specific rights which exist because you are human that government cannot abridge.

We seem to have to readdress this topic about every couple of weeks. This is certainly the wrong web site to proselytize, which is the real purpose for regurgitating the topic.

Pithy.

Actually, by your definition, you are agnostic. You're not quite sure so you are hedging your bets.If you are a Christian, you cannot be an Objectivist, by definition. You may agree with much of what Objectivism teaches but by accepting faith over reason you fail the critical test.

Had Ayn Rand been given more time, and the opportunity to experience God, She would have revised her definition of Objectivism. She just wasn't lucky enough to encounter the Creator of the universe, that's all. Everything she was, and all that she contributed to society were gifts from God. Her mortality speaks of her human condition, and that, was determined by the Almighty. Knowledge is a gift from God. Use it!

Ah, yes! "... except for the absence of proof for God.". And how many things did we consider true last century (even last year!) that we now realize was a fallacy?

IMHO it cannot be a religion. Objectivism is based on facts, not on something that has not been proven. And no person is worshiped.

Let me throw in a curve ball...here.

Why can't Objectivism be a religion, in itself? Much of it is based upon faith, because we can't truly know everything. Besides, along with worship of a God, Merriam-Webster also defines religion as:
"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"

I rest my case.

I have found that some Objectivists are very pragmatic in their thinking. They cannot accept the fact the human mind uses much more than its 5 obvious senses to gather information and facts. Our brains are magnificent and are capable of much more than we know, but some Objectivists only accept what they themselves have experienced and will not accept the experiences of others who have gained access to other parts of their brains or have acquired abilities not yet attained by them. So proving a link to God to them is very hard unless they experience it themselves. But I can say for a fact that I have undeniable truth of the existence of God. He spoke to me, inside my brain. A still, small, voice of reason. No, not my conscience as I know what that is in my consciousness. I am talking about a distinct voice I heard like mental telepathy. It stopped me in my tracks it was so distinct. Most Objectivists will call me crazy which is always the case when something new is introduced. It has been that way since the beginning of time. I cannot prove it, but it doesn’t matter. I know it happened and will continue to happen. This fact does not keep me from being logical, or objective. It adds to it.

someone removed a point for this very accurate comment. c'mon people. at least acknowledge facts, even if you disagree with them.