Answering:
"How one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well?"

Philosophy's scope is the problem of universals.

What is universally true for all people for all time? Any attempt to address that domain, regardless of its competence, is an attempt of philosophy. Most are not comprehensive, fully integrated and testable in reality. That's what distinguished Objectivism.

These universal factors are the common base upon which all the individual sciences and other disciplines sit. It is the common foundation.

Aristotle's seminal identifications of - what is, is; and it can only act according to it's nature, gives us all science, validity and freedom. It permits all of us to work with a common understand for words that we act on so we can collaborate effectively.

I have been reading this thread with great amusement and interest. It reminds me of one of George Carlin's bits.

Delivering the news, Carlin, the newscaster moves on to his next story: "Scientists today report the discovery of a new number. It lies somewhere between 6 and 7. They have named the new number, "Bleen."

He who asserts the existence of a positive assumes the burden of proof of its validity. Its validity does not rest with the inability of someone else to disprove it. I do not yet know the cause of the universe. When I discover it, or am provided with the evidence for same, I will have discovered that it is but a part of the universe, and of course, will have simply moved the question one step further away (or nearer), your choice.........

Oh, all of that is Real, more than any of us might realize...but to address the clarity you seek which I appreciate, I'll keep it short in the hopes this might help you.
Note, I am involve in work that no one has attempted seriously with any sort of integration of academic subjects...My cross to bear...so to speak...

Everything there, except perhaps "Bicameral" can be looked up and has a specific definition, ie, Quantum Event, Quantum Entanglements, Families of Quantum Entanglements, mysticism...etc.
Now, I, Like Julian Jaynes use Bicameral to describe "Pre-Conscious" man...meaning man was not aware of his own awareness...ex, not knowing the voice in his head was his own and Not some invisible entity speaking from outside himself. Of course when bicameral is used in relation to the brain, it's simple 2 parts, split left and right with different functions.

Who is John Gault? :-)

So much psycho-babble!!
Are those "10 simple rules" the Juedo-Christian Ten Commandments?

If so, I suggest you read them again with the perspective of one question: How many advocate blind obedience to an arbitrary, self-proclaimed authority and how many offer good advice? I find that point of view very revealing.

Remember, every successful lier wraps their gotchas in a lot of truth. If they didn't they would get no attention or presumption of respect.

I realize that correlation does not imply causation, but it is no coincidence that America's embrace of socialism has coincided with its least religious time. Rand's combination of capitalism and atheism is an exception. Many of us would like to see Rand's philosophy become the de facto standard, but unfortunately it is not.

What does god-given mean in the context of what is god? Why do you even consider such a concept? What do you consider evidence?

I recommend using the AynRandLexicon.com site for some detailed understanding of Objectivism, concept formation, truth, reason, and much more.

PS...the big bang was Not a "Quantum Event", for give me, I thought you of all of us would know what a quantum event was. Maybe they don't teach that in relation to Quantum Mechanics, I realize it' very different than what you studied.
If it interests you...look up what a "Quantum Event" is...it has a specific description and definition...it's a couple of pages long...but it's Awesome!

You may think I'm shallow, but I see a bunch of words for which you have provided no concrete definitions. It's the grounding of language that keeps us real rather than in the land of vague babble.

It may help you to see Ayn Rand's, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" - her theory of concepts.

That holds people accountable to indicate the facts of reality that an abstraction, a concept, subsumes. It's all about the role of concepts to take the infinite detail of the world and group that detail into mentally manageable, named groupings. Epistemology teaches how to do that competently.

The first identification to establish the necessity of this is to observe that we can only hold a few units in focal consciousness at once. Concepts are how we leverage this limited capacity.

Rand's great strength is her uncommon honesty and clarity of thought - identifying essentials from all the noise of other detail. It's not that such detail is not important, but it's not the distinguishing characteristics that help us understand. Still, it is important to understand that all that detail is the referent for the concept. That distinction between referents and definitions is an important principle. "Chairs" can refer to all the chairs in sight, in the world, in the history of the world and in the future. All that scope in one mental unit. AND, the referees is all those actual and potential chairs with all their details.

Let's get real!

[Edit for clarity and typos]

I live by Geneva Lake in southern Wisconsin and mainly deal with feral cats and raccoons which eat most of the food. I noticed that that altruism thing, that The Brights seem to relate to morality, does not occur with those animals. With raccoons there is no sharing even with the young which need stand aside as the adults get food in a pecking order and then the young which form their own pecking orders. Cats just sit by and watch until the raccoons are gone and then eat and then just ignore we humans while getting ready for another long nap before their nocturnal work in the neighborhood late at night.

Quite right.

Thanks. A good model for how materials self-assemble can be obtained by seeing how magnetic spheres, formerly sold under the trade name of Buckyballs before being outlawed by the FDA nannies, can be formed into shapes.

“Theists (aka deists ...)” or also known as Sorry, that’s not correct. Theists and deists are crucially different.
Theists claim the existence of one or more gods, and also assume that such god(s) take an active part in human affairs: answering prayers, tormenting the Wicked in Hell after they die, making sure a college football player who loves Jesus catches a particular forward pass, sending a tornado to destroy a town of nice people for mysterious reasons according to his inscrutable will.
Deists hold that a supreme being created the universe with all intentions realized, but does not take an active role in the preordained activities. Essentially, created the universe and pushed the Run button.

So theists get more personally involved: Telescopes are built by man, man is fallible, telescopes are the work of the devil, Galileo had to spend the rest of his life under house arrest (with threat of torture) unless he denounced his discovery that disproved the Church’s notion, “The Heavens are fixed and immutable.” Theists torture the non-believer, behead the Wicked, or shoot homosexuals on behalf of their gods.
Deists don’t get upset when a scientist discovers their god’s mysteries and invents a lightning rod to keep common homes safe from lightning. The Evil will receive divine punishment eventually. Just take care in the mean time to lock up the robbers, murderers, snake oil salesmen (present major-party presidential candidate excepted), influence peddlers/money launderers (present other major-party presidential candidate excepted), brutals, and other breakers of Man’s laws.

Not under argument: Pantheists believe that all of reality is identical with divinity and god is all-encompassing rather than a distinct personal or anthropomorphic being.

Atheists reject the notion of natural and/or supernatural deities.
[Full disclosure: I am personally in this group. For me, the sun rising in the morning requires no deities—not the Aztec Lord of the Dawn Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli nor the Egyptian sun god Ra encompassing literally the long and short of it.]

Both theistic and non-theistic persons include destructive individuals. Historically, the theistic-motivated ones, and in modern times, those who attach to The State a godlike authority, effect congregated massive destruction, with millions of victims. Non-theist bad-actors generally cause damage at a personal scale with usually no more than tens of victims.

I'm suddenly reminded of an eagle nest at the Birmingham Zoo. In its great bird cage there was a pair of eagles who could not fly or so I was told over a decade ago. Have not been back since.
I've watched eagle-like ospreys glide about and dive for fish at a lake my family has a house by in the Florida Panhandle.

You are welcome. And was I right or not? I said "Nuff said", and look at all the gobbledegook that fills the space above between your original comment and my compliment! That's the reason I usually read the comments as soon as I get the email, and don't bother coming back. This forum fills up with insignificant verbiage after that time!

Cool. Thanks for asking, wasn't sure if folks here were open-minded enough to be curious. Guess I have to remember that this is Atlas Society, not ARI! 😎

That said, my response with take a bit of time to craft well, so I promise to respond later at a more conducive opportunity.

Cheers,

Exactly what is it you believe I said was true? Obviously, there can be no contradictions. If I thought otherwise, I would not even be here.

And conclusions that are either erroneous or true, but about something other than the actual object of thought

Well...yes, reality exists...no doubt...so too, successful tools for living and achieving a value producing, creating civilization. Like: Do not murder, someone might just murder you or kick your ass. Do not worship money, fame, a person, a rock, the earth, stars or other planets...it's just destructive and silly. Instead, why not just appreciate what ever forces that came together that allowed You, to exist, for everything to exist. Do not break one's promises, be faithful to your wife, your word. Do not tempt another into behavior that is destructive or behavior they can not handle. Would it be right to offer a drug addict some drugs? And one I feel is equally important: Do not lie about another, accuse falsely, blame some one else for what you yourself have done...government, liberals and progressives, not to mention the non-conscious...comes to mind here. Of course there is having a sense of mutuality with others (unless of course they oppose you by 180) and I think last but not least, appreciate your mom and pop.
Simple stupid right?
What part of any of this is not related to a reality we all might desire?

I do not understand what I said to give you the impression I would respect any religion that calls for the slaying of anyone. Clearly, I have not been as perspicuous as I had hoped. My bad.

The really difficult thing was that she was still free of breast cancer for 10 years and then killed at 50. Death and dying is part of my family since cancer is part of the mix for 3 of the 7 so far. Mother and her brother at 33, another of my sisters at 41 and a brother at 68 so far. No need for a god belief or any supernatural nonsense.

Just was off seeing whether some of your relatives had returned for some fish lately at:

http://www.dceaglecam.org/

I had not looked into taxonomy for decades. I see that birds have a Clade of dinosauria now so those eagles are modern dinosaurs but not quite like an allosaur.

I'm here mainly due to what "progressive" pinheads are doing to this country and the world.
Just like how Ayn Rand predicted!
The only thing she left out was the let's make nice to Muslims who hate and will kill us anyway part.

A relationship with the living God of all creation, is all you need.

What I'm talking about is a successful quantum event...triggered by the stress of a frightful natural event...probably a low altitude aurora, the result of atmospheric charging...CME.
Mankind at the time, not being aware of one's own awareness could not complete a quantum event without some outside trigger event.

It was obvious that mankind thought long and hard upon how to be good and successful without all the waring, killing and oppression they experienced.
These quantum events might very well be the results of quantum entanglements.
There is a whole lot more to it...it'll take an entire book to explain...one inwhich I'm working on. It takes the integration of many academic subjects to achieve. Once integration's have been made it is difficult to disassemble them into the proper order of events.

I'll give you a helping thought: partials of energy come together under an electromagnetic force we call gravity. This gravitational force is the weakest force of the physical laws but governs best when close...(much like our governments were supposed to be) This force binds together these partials of energy into electrons, protons and neutrons, atoms and cells...all with the information these cells need to become what we call solid matter...the rest is carried out in similar fashion until there is You.