+1 the secret down voter struck.

You don't understand philosophical principles.
There are no natural contradictions; only those created by the mind. In principle, Rand;s philosophy and God are contradictions -period.
Yes, I don't live with contradictions because I don't allow them to be created. That is not the same as temporary conflicts.
If you don't grasp this, then let's stop here.

I have an 0. O boohoohoo! LOL!

After life just mean life after death. Lets not read more into it than what I stated. There is no definitive proof until we die. Where is the contradiction to Rand to believe man is something greater than a collection of cells, potentially eternal in some capacity?

Also, your entire life is consistent and without contradiction? My had is off to you.

No one said you can't believe what you want. This is about beliefs without contradiction.
After-life vs free will - huh?

Please, I'm no ones drone. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, never hid that here. A person has the right to believe whatever they wish in the United States (First Amendment). I see your/her position and understand it. However, I see no contradiction since Rand doesn't consider there to be an after-life and free will is the bedrock of Christianity.

You obviously do not know Rand's philosophy.
Rational thought does not allow for contradictions.

To me this question is a curious one. If man has sole dominion of his choices and his will then the question is a non-starter. Free will, and respect of the individual, allows for many possibilities.

The individual has the right to choose what he believes, even if that belief is ala carte from a variety of sources and influences.

Who has the right to impose on another a system of belief (that includes philosophies system)?

Very wrong. Love should be based on one's highest values/virtues and most definitely involves rational thinking. That is subjectivism.

Me dino is a born rebel contradiction.
And I am free to be one if I want to.
Well, I'll be gone for hours. Bye for now.

No one said you can't. This is more about one's principles not letting him hold contradictions.

Well, since love is an emotional condition very seldom involving rational thinking, one can suppose so. But a true Objectvist has to say NO.

Me dino can love anyone I want.
If this is supposed to smoke believers like me out for a bashing, I don't really have to respond to what anyone has to say.
Why? I'm free to do that to.
Psst, there's a bunch of us already here.
Some don't post. Some just PM me.

I presume that by "They hold Consciousness comes first", you mean that theists believe that what exists had a prime mover. If that is the case, then we agree on that point. I will not pursue the "something comes out of nothing" argument, or its counterargument. What is ... is.

Objectivists can have non-Obj. friends if they deem it to be in their self-interest.

Sorry about that - I had just read a post that was talking about AR. "Welcoming" is still undefined. Can we have non-Obj. friends for ex? Sure.

I was referring to the author of the article, not to Ayn Rand. You may want to look at the article that was the subject of your post. Rand never said that those who love the Bible should be welcomed. She showed open hostility to theists, and I am not saying she was wrong to do so.

Objectivists cannot be religious, as both you and I said.

Show me the quote - I don't believe she would say that, but I'd have to see the context.
What does "welcomed" mean here?
What is for sure is that Obj.s cannot also be religious - contradiction.

No, theists do not agree with that. They hold Consciousness comes first - that's the primary. The difference is more fundamental than you suggest.
And that translates in Epistemology to reason vs faith.

The foundational principle for Objectivism is that "Existence exists." Theists will agree with that, but are unsatisfied with leaving it there. Theists have a yearning for an understanding of both how, and more importantly, why, "existence exists". Objectivists could reasonably ask, "What difference does it make?" To the theist, the answers to those questions make all the difference.

She also made a statement that those who love Atlas Shrugged and the Bible should be "welcomed with open arms". Whether an Objectivist chooses to welcome theists with open arms is up to the Objectivist. If the Objectivist deems that not welcoming theists is not in his/her self-interest, then that is the Objectivist's own business to decide.

One who loves God can appreciate many (but not all) of the themes (like self-reliance, entrepreneuship, freedom) in AR's novels, but ... when one who loves God reads her non-fiction and learns her philosophy, one who loves God cannot simultaneously be an Objectivist. That would be contradictory.

If you're irrational you can hold any contradictions in your head that you want to, but it isn't Objectivism.

Actually no it isn't...you have to realize how bicameral's thought. They had no awareness of themselves nor their mind. They were not Conscious, therefore everything was outside themselves and the only way they could relate was to humanize everything...much like present day liberal progressives and the majority of the worlds rulelessers right up to today.
It's likely that only 50% of western society has achieved consciousness and access to their minds; however...doesn't mean that they use them all of the time...laughing, even though that's sad.

Ridiculous. Existence as a primary is in contradiction with Consciousness as a primary (religion).