Sorry -- that's not humanity. It might work for computers (no hormones) but not for good ol' homo sapiens.

Why is it that such an easy concept to understand is so difficult for some people?

Good & Evil originate with religion? Nonsense.
Primitive Homo Sapiens biting into his first apple: "MMM Good."
Same H.S. Biting into a poisonous berry; AAARGH, Bad.
The concept of good and bad are as old as mankind. C'mon, now.

Admitting to be an atheist in the time of the founders simply wasn't done. It would cause much consternation and difficulty. Much easier to function in the guise of a believer than proclaiming the truth.

Thanks for your concise response and clarification.

You are asking me to defend a claim I never made. And what you assert is a “flaw” is actually one of Objectivism’s greatest strengths, an ethical system derived by reason and logic, and based on the facts of objective reality and man’s rational nature. If all moral systems are equal – if the moral status of a genocidal dictator is equal to the moral status of a productive individual – then the Objectivist ethics is meaningless as a guide to personal behavior, and the rest of the philosophy, which you say you support a “majority” of, will not stand either. In economics, you cannot claim that capitalism is morally superior to socialism. In epistemology, you cannot claim that reason is morally superior to mysticism. In metaphysics, you cannot claim that understanding objective reality is morally superior to blanking out the mind with drugs or alcohol. In politics, you cannot claim that freedom is morally superior to slavery. Take away the Objectivist ethics, and the remaining “majority” of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is left with no basis of support.

Aaaahh men would care for one another
In a volunteer basis.

Re: “is this a forum dedicated to the observation of reality, or is it restricted to 100% Objectivists?” That’s a false alternative. There’s a big difference between those who disagree with Rand on specific conclusions and applications of her philosophy, and those who disagree with one or more of her philosophy’s basic premises. And it is not “dogmatic” or “intolerant” of anyone to question whether this is an appropriate forum to promote religious or other views that dispute these basic premises.

I have a friend who is wrapped up in his belief in god. He truly believes that two demons sat next to him at a lunch counter and that god knocked him flat on his face in his driveway with a heart attack for not doing enough to pay god enough for his previous life style. Is he just seeing reality in a manner which most of the rest of humanity just have not discovered yet?
From my standpoint, his beliefs are his problem and not mine.
Just as a helpful little saying, though I do not subscribe to Gestalt Therapy is:

I do my thing and you do your thing.

I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
and you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, 1969)

"The question is whether this is the appropriate forum in which to do so."

True. +1 And again I ask: is this a forum dedicated to the observation of reality, or is it restricted to 100% Objectivists? I find much of Objectivism to be applauded and I greatly appreciate and value the general tenor of the people on this forum. This is the only forum I have been a part of in which the general attitude is one of attention to truth rather than mindless partisan bickering.

Regarding "mysticism", I find it to be the proverbial (and entirely ephemeral) boogeyman in this forum. Many are more than willing to jump to the conclusion that anything related to a belief in God is verboten simply by labeling it "mysticism". To clarify, however: No, I don't believe that something exists outside of "reality". I believe that there are things which absolutely do exist but which we can detect or experience only under the proper circumstances.

Imperfect analogy: I have a telescope which when I have it pointed in the proper direction and appropriately focused allows me to detect a passing comet. But I have 20/2400 vision, so when I hand you the telescope, all you see is a big blur. Until you learn to use the telescope to work with your visual acuity and point it at the appropriate section of sky, detection of the comet remains out of your reach.

What if you demand of me to show you the comet with the naked eye? Is the reality of the comet dependent on the method by which one insists on detecting it, or does one have to be willing to use the appropriate instrumentation and methods?

Full automatic wimps.
Meet you at the B.A.R.

I define God as capital R Reality, as a whole in it largest all-inclusive sense. All-that-is. Not each part, process and subset thereof, but EVERY part, process and subset thereof, taken as the single fundamental greatest Unity.

In my spiritual practices (the things I do to build, maintain and grow my relationship with God = my spirituality), I consider 2 aspects of God.

One is what I call Presence, which is the very quality of Beingness which pervades and is shared by Everything That Exists. Through meditation and prayer (not in the traditional sense of that word) and other spiritual practices, I can feel and connect to that infinite reservoir of power and energy to recharge and turbo charge myself to rise above and perform beyond my own finite store of power and energy.

The second aspect is Grace or Spirit or Flow, as you will. This is the intricate field of interlocking beginningless and endless causual connections - The Way of Things. This is where I seek guidance, data and direction beyond my finite store of knowledge and understanding and my limited capacity for wisdom, insight, forsight, intuition and creativity. It is the realm of everything that I don't know that I don't know. It is where all possibility residws, where what I need to know when I need to know it, to live at my peak performance and direct my actions and my life optimally, unfolds as I need to know it in Ever Emerging Reality (my job is to pay attention [LOVE that phrase!], let go of the best-guess snapshot of how reality should be, and continually integrate that data into my ever evolving strategies and next steps.

Ok. I will stop there for now.

Dobrien, I do not favor excluding non-atheists from the forum. Nor have I objected to anything you have posted. My specific concerns have been addressed in my exchange with Blarman above.

Herb , you once put me on your list of modern day hero's.
Today you might put me on another list, but I,for my own self interest will be inspired by the Hero list.

"You and the site are exceptional lights!
Your material, humor and demeanor are greatly appreciated. :)
Best wishes,"
Thanks O.A for summing up my appreciation of
Herb as well.

Back in the good 'ole days before the government started doing social work not required by the Constitution, churchgoing centered communities were looking out for each other.
You didn't need house insurance. If a storm blew your house down, neighbors would find time to help you build it back up.
Of course, it would be expected of you to return the favor should a need arise..
Ha! It just hit me that there were no building codes back then either.

I was wondering if I should change my moniker to Dr. Evil but I'll stick with old dino's extinct species name.

Herb ,In 1930, Einstein composed a kind of creed entitled “What I Believe,” at the conclusion of which he wrote: “To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense...I am a devoutly religious man.” In response to a young girl who had asked him whether he believed in God, he wrote: “everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” And during a talk at Union Theological Seminary on the relationship between religion and science, Einstein declared: “the situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

No one says you don't have the right to challenge hypotheses. The question is whether this is the appropriate forum in which to do so. In Objectivism, atheism is more than a mere “quibble”. It derives from a foundational aspect of the philosophy, the acceptance of reason and the rejection of mysticism, which Ayn Rand defines as “the claim to the perception of some other reality—other than the one in which we live—whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.” Introducing any form of mysticism or supernaturalism into Objectivism undercuts the entire philosophy. It’s the equivalent of saying “I’m a Christian, and I’m in basic agreement with Christianity's view of reality, philosophy and teachings, with the exception of one little quibble – I don’t believe in God.”

Thanks for that.

+1 to you Dino.
Satanosaur it doesn't have a "good" ring to it.

CBJ with all due respect you left this out of your cut and paste.
"If you've read Ayn Rand and have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, this is the site you've been waiting for."

8/2015 I read Anthem, 10/2015 Atlas Shrugged,
11/2015 The Fountainhead.

I then searched Ayn Rand and learned more about her. I learned she was called "the enemy" of the Progressives, That William F. Fuckley Jr.
had panned AS in a very negative fashion.
He is who I think about when I think of Ellsworth Monkton Toohey.
I watched Ayn being interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1959, I was 2 (57 years later I for the 1st time heard it)
I have been influenced, as to the ABOUT section of this forum ."this is the site you've been waiting for." I signed up.

Regarding like minded individuals I find very much to agree with the posts and comments, and have been expanding my knowledge for my own self interest.
I have not seen a requirement for an undisclosed or arbiturary "common ground".
Is that your qualification? If so please define "certain amount"

I am apathetic to other forums and their tolerance of differing views.

I support many of her ideas, I just have to disagree on her stance advocating atheism. If the forum treats Ayn Rand like the Prophet Mohammed where everything she says is inviolate law, then I will leave - of my own free will. I haven't seen anyone advocate such - especially since Rand herself disavowed such a role.

But I have the right - and Rand herself affirmed it - to challenge hypothesis where contradicted by data. Reality is in the data - not the hypothesis. If I am asked to leave by a moderator, I will of course do so and take my paid membership with me. But I didn't acquire 10K+ upvotes by being anything less than a contributing member of this forum - despite my quibbles.