Back in the mid-sixties some dude named Irving (surname forgotten) agreed we both at the same time saw what appeared to be a ghost in an abandoned house at Sarasota, Florida.
Before that we were hearing creepy voices.
That's the only time something like that happened to me and was way before I first inhaled and evolved into despising pot.

More likely, the universe came from a Big Bang in existence, a vacuum capable of producing stuff like particles. Existence is a tricky concept that kind of makes one to want to think of stuff just made of matter. The quantum mechanical vacuum does not require a beginning of itself. It is the beginning of everything. It is not in some place but is the result of there not being any place. All time, space, momentum, energy, and other measurements are relative to other things and not to any absolute place where existence exists.
No need to worship, just wonder about how to find out what mankind has not found out yet and how to apply that knowledge to live your own life. Finding out is, for sure, the most joyful thing a human can do short of some short term human interactions.

There is absolutely an opportunity for one to both be religiously committed to both a doctrine and the philosophy of objectivism.
By Starting in objectivism ones personal needs, wants and other philosophical aspects can become fulfilled,....but,
At some point the human psyche has an inbred desire, "compulsion", or need, to reach out and care for those whose lives, capacities, and "life" have not had the innate abilities, talents, and "good fortune" as the rest of society. Without that, what else separates us from the "Jungle" from which we come? What gives us the 'second level" of objectivism that shows us that compassion, and sharing , not only of our wealth, but our knowledge and life experiences is in the best interest of improving the future generations of "objectivist mammals", to ultimately better the entire world?

That's sad. People get accidentally killed or worse.
That's just the way it is in this world.
I see God as on the receiving end on the other side.
Can I say that here? Seems only fair due to the nature of this post.

A pleasant pair of poems together (to the best of my recollection):

Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night
God said, "Let Newton Be" and all was light.
It did not last, the Devil howling, "Ho"
"Let Einstein Be" recalled the status quo.

By whose definition? Certainly not a person of reason. Only a person of "faith" could say this. As you say, for "them" it's a given. I doubt any of "them" ever examined the issue of defining what they believe in. After a definition is agreed upon, then comes the time for evidence. I never got past the first step with a godist.

I'm a Christian who believes allosaur fossils are found in Jurassic Period rock layers.
Neanderthals were here before Cro-Magnon modern humans. So there is a Cain going to the mysterious land of Nod story someone may care to kick around since it has recently been proven we all have Neanderthal genes.
I still believe in that someone's name American military clergymen are PC forbidden to say in a prayer under the Obamanation regime.

Out of what?

There is no built in knowledge for humans. All knowledge is discovered by individuals and hopefully the good knowledge is passed on to later generations. That goes for Objectivism as long as it is an open system, as with all knowledge to which new thought can add to it if necessary.

Sounds like she should be the God of Quantum Physics. :-]

I took multiple terms of quantum mechanics at MIT where I got my degree in physics, and what you wrote isn’t about any quantum physical event(s). It was unfathomably vague mysticism, verging on complete gobbledygook. You say “we recognize 10 simple rules that took mankind 10's or 1000's of years to integrate; culminating during a purely natural event.” What is that gibberish supposed to mean?

Please explain about these 10 simple rules. Are you suggesting some well publicized David Letterman top-ten list that culminated with his show? And who is the “we” that you assume includes me and everyone else on this forum (at minimum)?
I recall some important “great truth” rules I learned: “Reality exists.” and “You cannot consume more than you produce.”
And “What is morality? Judgment to know right from wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act on it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.” That’s where my old wrote learned ideas take me.

Oh wait, I just remembered a bunch of those reliable old rules that might be what you meant:
“Slow and steady wins the race.” and “He who hesitates is lost.” (Aren’t those contradictory?!)
“Never run with scissors.”
And the most important rules. “Don’t use a screwdriver as a pry bar.” and “Don’t take any wooden nickels.” (That one is 1000’s of years old for sure, now translated as nickels instead of sesterces or shekels.)
And “Never give a sucker an even break nor wizen up a chump.” Most folks don’t remember the second part of that rule. [sarc]Thus dooming society.[/sarc]

Also please specify the “purely natural event” of rule-level interest. Was it perhaps the Toba supervolcano eruption (in what is now Indonesia) of nominally 70,000 years ago that may have produced a genetic bottleneck in human evolution? It wasn’t a quantum event like the cosmological big bang, or quantum mechanics-related, like the spectrum lines from distant stars, or how lasers work.

Were you suggesting perhaps rules from some favorite religion? I somewhat like the vigor of “Kill for the love of killing. Kill for the love of Kali.” I’m less thrilled by Donald Trump petty jealousy, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Or are you talking about things like “Don’t murder!”? Religionists usually mistranslate “murder” as “kill” from Dead Sea Scrolls and other antiquities with such ideas, and they throw in a bunch of outmoded thee/thou/thy/thine’s to make it sound official, as though used with the approval of Major League Baseball.

It is not a history question, it is a question of logic

Ok @cksawyer, I'll bite.
What is your definition God that you reclaim?

What do think of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction (AKA the law of identity)?

What are your rules of evidence before you say you think something is true? What is responsible behavior on this point?

Allosaur, You can believe anything you want. It only becomes issue when you need to apply your knowledge to reality. I think fiction is of value, but not knowing that it is fiction is a problem.

Here is where you ability to reason comes to the fore. People have many experiences they can't explain. Some times they come up with explanations that are not verified or verifiable. Some care about that distinction.

What are the benefits and risks of not caring about that distinction?

By definition, God is not understandable by man, therefore no man could define their god except in those terms yielding a permanent impasse to discussion or debate. The last thing a religionist really wants to do is debate the existence of god. For them it's a given.

I am more than happy to share, but I respect this forum and its premises, so I only share in PM's.

Thanks for at least being willing to consider the notion. That is a bigger step than you may know.

Precisely. Everything begins with definitions. Poor definitions lead to poor reasoning.

My dad, who had taught Sunday school trying to meet girls, mentioned that about Cain going over to live with the other people as a contradiction since Cain and Abel were supposed to be the only other people. My preacher's son brother-in-law says those others were angels or something. When my sister was killed in an auto accident, he could not understand why god would kill her and not see it as an accident. He seemed to believe that his god would punish him by harming his loved ones. I had an aunt who spent nearly her whole life believing that god was angry with her. Enough to drive a person to drink as it has done to many.

Two points: I want to know it the party I'm dealing with is a Ztw because I want to know how that party's mind works. A Ztw (or other religionist) claiming to be Objectivist while holding contradictory beliefs will eventually run headlong into the contradiction. Most of the time religion wins; on rare occasions, when the individual in question is truly intellectually honest, rationality wins. The human race has been brainwashing its children (and itself) for far to long for this to change any time soon. The question is whether or not humanity will survive long enough to rid itself of the poison it has regularly ingested for thousands of years.

okay ... nothing like imagination! -- j

p.s. I'd pick someone like this::: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=r...
.

This is a brilliant and extremely open-minded reply. Most of atheism as we encounter it is based on accepting others' definitions of God. Let's get clear on what we are talking about before we decide what to deny or disavow.

Following the principles of Objectivism is no different than any faith or religion. What is needed is an understanding of Objectivism and living one's own life and not get into some kind of faith thing.
Don't get into a trust/belonging course of life. I saw the value of Rand's works when I came upon them when I was 25 in 1965. I saw the value because my father never taught us about a god but just taught us some basic moral principles about honesty, not stealing, and telling the truth, That changed when my mother died when I was 13 and my dad married a daughter of a itinerate pastor who immediately began trying to influence the younger kids and got three of the seven of us to become true believers in Jesus. My dad married because social services threatened us with foster homes.
I found that Objectivism was a lot of common sense with some extra hard thinking thrown in to keep from going all religious about it.
I see the main difference between the religious and the objective as with the father who was interviewed about his son who had recovered from three gun shot wounds who thanked god for the recovery rather than thanking or recognizing all the men and women throughout history who took the time and effort to find out how to treat such wounds. It is too easy to just thank a non-entity, that should just be recognized in cursing as the absurd, than to actually take time to find out what really happened to save one's self or someone else.
As for the mention of taking Galt's oath, that is one of those trusting/belonging things that I would thing Objectivism would counter.

I am not involved in a religion, nor do I entertain, let alone worship any supernatural or mystical "being." However spirituality and my spiritual practices are of central importance in my life. I consider myself a "secular spirtualist."

I have reclaimed the word God from the meanings others have given it and redefined it for myself in away that both is in integrity with an objective metaphysics and an epistemology of reason, while at the same time supports a deep, rich and practical spirituality and potent spiritual disciplines.

I will share more if I have a couple of interested parties....