To use a different perspective, I think Ayn Rand's atheism (antitheism) was primarily a reaction to experiences in her childhood which she took to be universal. Her characterizations of religious belief deal far more with structure than with belief.

what in the sam hill are you talking about?!

Objectivist?

OK, I’ll try again.

I think it was Dominique that said “How can you say I love you if you can’t say I."

So who is this “I” and can that “I” exist without there being more than that which atheism acknowledges. I've read that the cat and dog does not recognize its name as its identity but perceives the word as a command to pay attention.

I’m saying that if the individual has rights, then he is more than just a biological composition of cells and therefore has a (best word I can find at the moment) spiritual element.

One more point...

Atheism is "Not Theism" - it does not specify what you stand for. And that's the important question.

That leave all other fallacies open. Good philosophy is responsible for addressing that.

What all philosophy shares is the questions it needs to address - they are the universals that apply to everyone everywhere in almost all civilized circumstances. Then the challenge is to identify and validate premises. Most people will not be interested in arguing about these, but they do rely on specialists, philosophers, to address these dimensions.

The fundamental here is ones rules of evidence. What does one's integrity demand before saying something is true?

I consider religion as the fraction of philosophy based on mysticism and claiming knowledge of the unknowable. That's only one of many fallacious assumptions that prevent one from achieving what Rand did...

She, for the first time, created a fully integrated and comprehensive system of philosophy. By comprehensive, I don't mean addressing all issues but at her level of abstraction having a consistency and match to reality that heretofore didn't exist, I like to say that she did for philosophy, what Newton did for physics. Newton didn't have all the answers, e.g. Einsteinian discoveries on behavior at a galactic scale - we live at a human scale.

So to address THE question - of course one can follow and agree with many principles and agree with many conclusions of Rand and not some others - people do that all the time with any category of knowledge you care to name.

The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't.

So it will serve us well to collaborate with those fighting to regain our freedom independent of what group they classify themselves with. Having consistent reasoning will be critical. One part of that is why we form governments to secure our rights and what justifies our claim to those rights.

I'll defer to the Declaration of Independence and Rand's essay on Individual Rights. And then her essay on The Nature of Government. Unfortunately, many readers and admirers of her fiction have never read the nonfiction - which she wrote to explain the way she came to ideas that she used to animate her fictional characters.

That provides the tools for thinking that can change our culture to regain and retain our freedom.

I'm not sure...there are some people that may not get out of here alive! ;-)

What???

Yes, it is.

Because the physical evidence supports a certain Narrative speaking of a supernatural Creator--and of a violent event the like of which we have never seen in our lifetimes, and which no one should have survived--but eight people did.

I suggest that the basic concept of objectivism contradicts atheism as it addresses the rights of the individual.

Aetheism is based on the belief that “Man comes from mud.” Therefore how can such a creature have any “rights?” The moment you assign a right to the individual, you move away from that which is atheism.

I see a sliding scale here with the Randian viewpoint being a bit of the way towards the other end of the monotheistic absolute.

You cannot keep a self-willed individual from championing Ayn Rand's philosophy - whether or not they are religious. All you can do is tell them not to sit next to you at the lunch table.

Many of the religious individuals who contribute to this list have rational arguments and worthwhile perspectives. They are welcome to sit next to me at the lunch table.

Jan, agnostic

Right on the money. You took the words right out of my mouth. (Very unsanitary, but true)

I believe that it is, and this was not an easy conclusion for me, I had to really think about it for two weeks after I finished the book, Atlas Shrugged. I am a nondenominational Christian. I do not go to church, and I believe that while the bible is a collection of very good stories, it is not proven nonfiction, but would be of excellent use to propaganda. And by propaganda, I mean it is very useful in creating obedience...
I also have a very strong belief that a thinking person is incapable of following any one philosophy 100%. If a person were to truly consider all the aspects of the philosophy, inevitably most reasonable people will disagree with some part of it. Having said that, Objectivism, would be the closest philosophy that I have found to describe my own lifestyle, or at least the lifestyle that I strive to achieve. I am also a believer in a higher power, I have seen too many miracles that could simply be nothing but a miracle.
I also believe that it is arrogant to believe that there is no creator. I believe something had to start life.

Advocate is good, as is supporter.

But I like 'champion'. It has a nice ring to it.


Jan

In response to the original question, I believe it is possible too. I know, because I love Atlas Shrugged and am not an atheist.

Consider if you are a follower of Ayn Rand or a believer in many of her ideas. For instance, you could agree and feel very much in step with almost all of the points that were expressed in Atlas Shrugged and still believe in God. Your just not a worshipper of the lady herself that thinks she is the incarnation of perfection!

I can not say to much about Ayn Rand herself because reading the book Atlas Shrugged recently was my introduction to Ayn Rand. I believe very strongly in most all the beliefs expressed in Atlas Shrugged but I suspect their would be plenty of things that I would not totally agree with Rand on. But Hey, I really do not think it is possible to find someone that I agree with 100%.

Personally, I was raised Catholic but as an adult I never believed the church's teachings in relation to God. At the same time I strongly dislike being called an atheist because I associate that with being a strong believer that NO God exist. That does not describe me. My belief is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe. Maybe a God created it or maybe not. If a God did create it, how did the god come into existence? Neither religions nor atheist can really explain things (though religions try with their fair tales).

I believe our inability to even begin to understand this is related to our understanding of time. There is a lot of theoretical study that suggest that time, as we understand it, is simply a figment of our imagination. Much evidence points to the idea that time does not travel in a linear line like we think it does. As long as we believe time is linear, how could you ever have a beginning? You would always have to explain what created the creator. Then you have to explain where the things came from that created the creator...then where those things came from...and on...and on.....and on....and on...etc.

http://brianrwright.com/Assets/Files/Bra...

Ayn Rand did believe in 'God'.
She just didn't realize it.
When governments fail, people generally don't believe in government.
When things we want or need fail us, we tend to abandon them.

Yes, this is possible, because both atheists and non-atheists follow her philosophy according to their own reasoning. While she dismisses belief as mysticism, one can be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, etc, and still hold to the strength of their own character, their own pleasure in the strength of their mind and believe.

There is a good book I just read, "The Soul of Atlas", that presents a young man's life under the tutelage of a father and a stepfather (to which he refers as 'my two fathers'). It's a very good read and addresses belief, money, sex and power. All are pertinent topics in this discussion.

I am so glad someone else started this thread. First let me say too many on this thread are parsing words to avoid the topic. Follower, believer, subscriber. I mean really. To follow does not in itself mean "blind."
Having said that and moving this BACK to the MEANING of the topic lets look at this comparing Biblical AND Rand's Collectivism.

https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/overview

Objectivism:
• Follow reason, not whims or faith.
• Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
• Earn genuine self-esteem.
• Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
• Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.


First let’s take the REAL definition of some words so we can apply proper context.
Full Definition of REASON
Mirriam-Webster
1a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity

Follower:
Full Definition of FOLLOWER
1a : one in the service of another : retainer
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates another
2archaic : one that chases
3: a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture or other deed
4: a machine part that receives motion from another part
5: a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm's magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion into the chamber
6: fan, devotee

The PRIMARY facet of collectivism is REASON. Definition 1a and 1b, clearly imply that there is an explanation for your thinking, and a rational. This excludes the statements that some religions use, well that is the greatest mystery and you must take it on faith. But does that mean religion or atheism is the ONLY way.

Look at the biblical definition of faith. Heb. 11: 1,2: 1. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.

Strong’s defines based on the ACTUAL Hebrew the following words. Evident.
evidence: 1650
e[legcoß Elegchos (el'-eng-khos);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 1650

1. a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested
2. conviction
Next the bible counsels people NOT to just accept what they are being told without investigating, and it was considered NOBLE-MINDED to NOT take things on blind faith.
Acts 17: 10-11
10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be•roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes•sa•lo•ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Reasoning is also talked about in terms of something acceptable to God.
Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.

Notice the use of the words “power of reason.”

So from one pillar of Collectivism REASON is key and in Christianity reason is not only important, but something considered Noble and Acceptable.

Working hard. Let’s look at one particular scripture that really pounds this home.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”

Seems pretty clear that when it comes to hard work, the Bible and Ayn Rand are in total agreement. Bible says don’t work then starve.

Self Esteem: That would be your name. Your personal self-worth, something you earn. Hitler earned a name for himself. Solomon indicated how valuable a name is.
Proberbs 22: 1 A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold.
There is no word specifically using the words self-esteem, however the parallels are in how the heart feels and reacts.
Proverbs 15:13 A joyful heart has a good effect on the countenance, but because of the pain of the heart there is a stricken spirit. Dozens of scriptures both old and new testament on how to build your heart i.e. self-esteem.

The last point there are way too many scriptures about trading value for value and owning the product of your own labor.

Answer is YES!!! It is Possible

The concept of God is misunderstood & misrepresented.

A correct concept is offered in the traditional Bible - New Testament - Book of John - Chapter 1 - Verse 1: "In the beginning . . . "
Translation: It's kind of like the way the Federal Reserve makes 'money'; something out of nothing, a concept that when appropriately employed, energizes an immense economy.

Here's a link to a picture with another concept of God - http://planet-hughes.net/images/Space-in...

Personally, I wouldn't waste time listening to Deniers or Doubters.

Grow up;
No longer seek the god you want or need.
Seek the 'God' that is.

'You shall know the 'truth' & the Truth will give you all the 'Fruit of the Spirit' which are Love, Peace, Joy, Goodness, Faithfulness, Kindness, Gentleness, Patience & Self-control.

"On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil. "

That's only because her philosophy flies in the face of socialism and communism. Many on the left believe in the tenets put forth by the looters and moochers in AS. They see no conflicts with robbing from those who have earned to give to those who haven't because it makes them feel good. But all they are doing is making everyone miserable because eventually everything has been redistributed and you then need to continue to rob people to redistribute the "wealth" because you can never equalize the equation until everyone has nothing.

Yeah, you'd think a partway nonconformist could be tolerated around here.
To be allowed to have the freedom to be who we want to be.
A Puritan would just hate a Christian dino.

the origin of existence should be left to science as objectivism does. objectivism only deals with reality hence A=A.

man's purpose is what ever each individual man choses his purpose to be, it is not a collective as you allude too when you say "whole".

one can not ignore the future when one has no idea what will happen in the future. I did not know that evolution was a "theory" since science has demonstrated that evolution actually has and continues to take place.

in conclusion you certainly are not an objectivist but prefer to argue against objectivism as a philosophy. now if you happen to know of another philosophy that men can live by please present it! then maybe we can all learn something from you.

For all of that, here I am, all you Huckleberries.
The only time I marched lockstep is when I was in the Marines.
This Christian dino enjoys his own independent thought.
I think Ayn Rand is peachy keen. Discovering her three years ago? I can still be swayed up to a certain point.
Oh, Jesus is the door to God, by the way.
Nyah! Nyah!