No... You don't listen to my answers. You're trying desperately to convince us that faith is based in reality and you're comparing it to love and freedom. I am done wasting my time with someone who won't open their mind up all the way.

Beliefs may be objective or subjective depending on why they are believed.

No. Sounds to me as a definition of philosophy.

Selfishness is a buzzword, used by Rand antagonists to turn people away from her philosophy, even though they know it is not used in its pejorative sense.

What are you trying to say?

Love one another above yourself shouldn't be an argument it simply means take care of each other have each others backs you may need the same someday you don't have to give out handouts the bible also says he who will not work shall not eat

He also rejected the significance of the entire content of metaphysics and epistemology, relegating them to no more than a "platform" for a "call for living together".

He doesn't understand any of this. He's a religious zealot hopelessly trying to rationalize whatever his politics are regardless of whatever actual reason he came to it.

Other major differences include the concept of morality itself as based on choice and causality versus duty and commandments, the notion of inherent sin, and the purpose as a mystical soul and another world.

One example is the a is a or existence is existence. The universe can be neither created or destroyed. I have a hard time believing that everything has just always been and always will be there had to be a beginning and eventually there will have to be an end.
Please don't argue with me I picked the least controversial one I had
My point in all this is we all won't agree on everything, that's what makes being on here fun. We agree on the big stuff disagree on the little details. So we debate them and but at the same time respect one another's opinions

Anti-patent in general or anti-patent for software?

BINGO

you can't group the two. One is an emotion, the other is concept/system of how we deal with one another. Love can be rational or irrational. what is your end game here?

Yes!

What do you mean by reconsidering Mark Cuban for a role as one of the titans in Atlas Shrugged as non-fiction? Atlas Shrugged has already been written, as a novel, and he isn't in it and wasn't considered for it the first time.

There have been a lot of productive industry leaders, but most don't come close to having the character of a Hank Rearden and Ellis Wyatt. You have reasons to admire Mark Cuban for his productive success with a particular product, but what do you think does he has to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy in Atlas Shrugged?

do you mind giving an example of an Objectivist position you disagree with? just curious

Pure conjecture. It became a waste of my time.

Are you saying Christianity does not teach us to love others above ourselves? To be our brothers' keeper? Do you honestly think that the ethics of Christianity are compatible with Objectivism? I'm beginning to think you are pulling my leg.

You have a political right to believe anything you want to, including falsehoods, with any picking and choosing you want. That is not the topic under discussion.

It is true that religion is not equivalent to philosophy, but it is a primitive form of it, attempting to formulate an integrated view of the world and how to live by primitive, invalid methods of speculation and faith. Religionists don't believe they are guessing, they accept mystical faith as a supposed means of knowing.

A philosophy may expand, improve its formulations, or correct errors, but valid basic principles do not change. It isn't 'A is A' one day 'A is B' or 'not A' the next. The philosophical notion that on principle there are no principles is Pragmatism, not philosophy itself.

Your being told that Ayn Rand's philosophy is an integrated system with logical dependencies and not a Chinees menu open to whatever you want it to be does not mean it is a religion.

No one told you that you can't personally believe whatever you want with as many contradictions as you want for your own philosophy, but that isn't Objectivism.