Indeed!!! Absense of proof is NOT proof of absense.

If I have to be an atheist to be an Objectivist, then I will never be one.
I lean fairly well toward the philosophy but I will never take that final step.
I keep learning a lot in the Gulch.

Um, no self-proclaimed atheist I've ever met has allowed for any kind of a supreme being or god and they are pretty adamant about it. Are there differing definitions of "god"? Sure. That's the principle reason for the plethora of religions out there! That being said, I think you have the First Amendment backwards. Making any subject off-limits is suppression of free speech...

Atheism openly declares there is no god and then goes on to say that there can be no proof. Numerous people on this forum have asserted this very thing. Agnosticism takes the middle ground and leaves open the door for proof by saying "I don't know". I think it would be more consistent for Objectivism to adopt agnosticism than atheism, but that's just my opinion.

BTW, I speak and read Demotic Greek. The "a-" prefix is generally used as a negation - in some cases meaning "without" but in most cases meaning "against" or "in opposition to". This latter definition is more accurate when referring to "atheist". When used in "agnostic" (from the negation prefix "a-" and the root word "gnosis" meaning knowledge), the word was used with the softer "without" form to mean "ignorant" rather than the harsher "anti-knowledge". The emphasis was that they recognized a lack of knowledge. Whether or not they actually did anything about it...

First of all the first amendment states that the government will not establish a religion. It does not mean that the subject of religion is off limits to citizens.

This is not the first time a question like this is debated in the Gulch. Why is so important for someone to discuss it? I'm curious.

I'm catholic (as some of you noticed in the past), and I have been beated a little bit (no resents though :)) for some opinions. Even my nickname (Fish) which I proudly bear (another time for that story) was sometime beated as well, funny :)

This is very simple. Ayn Rand founded Objectivism and she said it is incompatible with religion. Period. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So the plain and simple answer is NO! So what? I'm not an objectivist, but I share with objectivism many values. That's why I enjoy most of the posts here. I guess nobody thought I'm a masochist, right?

So again, why is it so important to discuss it? Hopefully it is not to purge the Gulch from subhumans hahahaha (please, allow some room for humor).

Unless you can show objective proof of his existence, not based on you emotions, then you have no proof that he actually exists. You also fail the epistemological basis of Objectivism. Epistemologically religion is based on the primacy of consciousness. Reality is subject to the will of some being. Objectivism states that existence is primary. Existence exists INDEPENDENTLY of ANY consciousness.

ok, but I perceive my God. I am conscious of Him and see how He works in my life. I physically feel His Holy Spirit who resides in my heart. I don't need faith to know He's real because I know He's real based on my conscious interactions with Him. I only have to trust that He will take care of me and that He has a plan for my life. That trust requires faith, but his existence is without question to me and those who have a relationship with Him.

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods due to the lack of convincing evidence. In essence, it is the null position in the concept of a god or gods and it goes no further than that. As such, atheism is non-religion which it literally translates from the original Greek (a-without or no; theos- God). It doesn't represent any system of belief.

Objectivism as a philosophy is defined by three axioms:
1. Existence exist, reality is real. In other words there is no room in Objectivism for the non existent.
2. Consciousness is that which perceives reality.
3. A is A. A thing is what it is and can not be what it is not.
Since religion is dependent on Faith, which insists that you believe something without reason or against reason, it is completely inconsistent with Objectivism and so NO you can not be an Objectivist and religious at the same time.

One can be "religious" and an objectivist only so long as there is no conflict that arises between them. I say that conflict will arise quickly unless you appoint Ayn Rand herself as the diety, and her philosophical underpinnings as the "bible". And then its not a religion anymore.

Forgive me but I'm going to ask what you would probably see as a really stupid question, but I am a newbie to this forum and in order to understand even why this topic is even a debate, I must. Now, first of all, Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books, but I haven't studied Objectivism. So can someone please define for me what Objectivism is so that I can understand why some would feel that it can't coexist with religion?

Yes if your religion happens to be objectivism.

It's all in how you define religion. Objectivists claim that religion only applies to a belief in God, which they reject. The more general definition of religion being a belief set, however, puts atheism as a religion in and of itself.

I think a better way to ask your question would be rather to focus on principles.

In a word: No.

I start and end with "reverence". You use odd terms that are land mines for Objectivists. Happy to see you here. Continue to post

hey. did you know Vinay was working with David Leyohjelm. and what do you think of his chances in re-election? and I recently turned my son onto Tim Minchin from your far flung neck of the woods. that is all :)

I agree with Z (this time).
The statement 'religions and Objectivism can co-exist' is correct only when it applies to people rather than to modes of thought. People can sit at a dinner table, vote in the same booth, exchange jokes, work together on projects and support the same footy team even tho' some are believers and followers and some are rational and individualists.

" A religion is the same principle but with some greater being", not so, a religion does not need a deity or some contrived greater being, religions are based on faith which is antithetical to Objectivism.

Dear Zenphamy,
I hold your opinion in high regard, because you have worked to come to your conclusion. As an Objectivist we are to hold reverence to those who work for their wage and their happiness. These are the heroes of our society, this is what separates us from others who lack motivation and simply ask for their share. I however feel some vexation, you simply placed a fallacy on my topic. Is my question truly “a complete lack of comprehension of objectivism” I have looked through and religions and Objectivism can co-exist in my perspective. Many religions suggest to work for a happiness (although through a figure of higher importance) but has Ayn Rand not transcended the working individual? Isn’t your own goals what you work for? A religion is the same principle but with some greater being. Religions and Objectivism also get into the respect for human beings. I myself see many similarities (even if I listed two) Can you see where I am coming from as a fellow objectivist?

Yes Mom. :)