I will not take a point away, but come on, Term!

he's a prog?! all the science and criticism of religion? ok. you are schooling me

May I suggest listening to or reading Branden's fourth lecture in the Basic Principles of Objectivism audio series (isbn 1-57724-054-5) - transcribed as "The Vision of Ayn Rand" in book form (isbn 978-0-9819536-1-8) That lecture helped me understand "The Concept of God."

"To be religious is to is to effect in some way and in some measure a vital adjustment (however tentative and incomplete) to whatever is reacted to or regarded implicitly or explicitly as worthy of serious and ulterior concern."

From The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilious Ferm, Ph. D., copyright 1945 by Philosophilical Library, Inc., Published by Popular Books, Secaucus, N.J., ISBN 0-89009-746-1 (http://www.church-of-reason.us/)

By this definition I'd say a lot of objectivists are religious.

Or maybe you are asking can an objectivist believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other equally absurd mystical/mythical beast?

It is easy to get lost in a discussion if terms have not been defined ;-)

Make it real simple. I am a Christian and I am an Objectivist.

It really all comes down to how one interprets The Bible. Many want to claim that The Bible is a book that only espouces love and self sacrifice. There are several examples of Godly men living the life of a warrior or leader who do not live a life of self sacrifice. Yes the highest example of Christianity is Christ himself who sacrificed ALL for Mankind but he is part of the Holy Trinity of God and therefore WAY BEYOND anything that man can aspire to. I myself live to the best of my ability following the tenants of Christianity, talk with God on a regular basis (pray), and ask him for guidance and forgiveness in my failings. I look to God much as an invisible Father figure. Best case I am right and I get into Heaven. Worst case I get some psychological comfort from my faith.

No, antithesism declares their is no god or gods. Some atheists refer to this as hard atheism, but that muddys the water. Atheism refers to the BELIEF in there being no god or gods, just as theism refer to the belief that there is a god or gods.

In the god existence debate, there are only two outcomes, either they do or they don't. So Theism and Antithesism are flip sides of this coin. However, in any debate you only argue one side of the issue. It is similar to our court system in the US. Even though a defendant is either guilty or innocent, we only address the guilty side of the argument. And the jury declares the defendant either guilty or not guilty. And they use the same method an atheist uses, if the evidence is compelling enough to overcome the burden of proof, then they are to return a guilty verdict (a god or gods exist). If not, then a not guilty verdict (they do not exist).

Also gnostism deal with the knowledge of a subject, while theism deal with belief on a subject, specifically a god or gods. They however are not mutually exclusive. You can have the agnostic theist (which I categorizes all theists as because none have any real knowledge to the existence of their god or gods) The impossible gnostic theist for the reason I mentioned above. The agnostic atheist (this is the null position in regards to god or gods. Also referred to as soft atheism). And lastly, the gnostic atheist (the antithesist. However, I believe they have a similar problem to the gnostic theist in that they need to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god or gods).

The simple answer to the question is "No". If religion, in whatever form, requires the concept of "Faith", one cannot expect reason to be his guide. Evidence requires that independent examination by disinterested others will arrive at the same results. A must equal A. Faith based beliefs allow a mind to destroy itself by equating fantasy with reality.

Nope

I believe many in The Gulch use religion much like the wanderer uses a compass. There is no denying Good & Evil in the world that surrounds us, as there's no denying there's a North and a South. In my opinion, the confusion for many is when that needle points in an Easterly or Westerly direction. This is where many fall back or support their thoughts and direction through the use of religion. (PS: I am a believer in THE higher power...)

A libertarian can be religious. An Objectivist, no, unless you consider Objectivism to be a religion.... (After all, Taoism is a religion without any deities.)

Now that was insightful...

That is not an example of faith. There is PROOF for the effects of gravity. Once you have proof of somethings existence you do not need to keep proving it. By the nature of gravity it will act the same way every time. You have a REASON to believe in the existence of gravity. Faith and Reason are opposites.

Why won't you take that final step?

There is no absence of proof in anything he said, except for the absence of proof for god. If something exists there is proof for its existence.

Uh-oh, here's the religious thing again. Just from memory and unscientifically, as I recall the consensus was, No you can't be an Objectivist and be religious because religion is irrational. However, you can be religious and follow the concepts of Objectivism and be part of the Gulch. My advice, however would be to either drop the religion or don't start arguing religion VS atheism.

"Not suppression it's payment on demand"

I agree. I took your comment to be one of "the subject of God is off-limits." My mistake. I agree with you that speech should not be coerced - except in the rare case when you are a government official reporting to Congress about your conduct in office. There, I fully support penalties of imprisonment, termination, etc. for repeated non-answers.

... and to beat (someone) to the punch, this issue of religion triggers both positive AND negative responses. Again, very telling ...

Fish, thanks for your input. There seem to be quite a few in the Gulch who are of the religious persuasion. Notice the abundance of comments that this topic always triggers? Very telling ...

... and we keep learning a lot from you, Dino! Your presence here is highly valued ... : )

Typical religious bs. You can FEEL wind. Just because you can't see your brain while standing in front of a mirror does not mean it doesn't exist, when you have actual physical proof that a thing known as a brain does exist. Etc...Etc...Etc. There is NO proof for the existence of the being you refer to as god.

I second the view about welcoming ScintiaSitPotentia 12,
There is some code there ....
It is good to see well written comments.

I hope to be excused for this off-topic comment-
We have both a Tim Minchin (entertainer, progressive) and a Nick Minchin (retired conservative senator) in the Australian public eye.
In the recent election, David Leyonhjelm's party, ldp.org.au, libertarian, had a weak campaign, all where we stand but nothing on current issues at least in my state. The complex counting still has Leyonhjelm's chances on a knife's edge.