"There are a thousand things we're told exist but we've never seen for ourselves." Yes, and some of the things we are told are backed by evidence and some are not. Existence itself is not evidence of a deity, and neither are "miracles".

In exorcising God out of objectivity objectivists essentially created one in Rand and her philosophy.

Q: Why is it so?
A: because Rand said...

I do not see the threat or competition.

Keplar 22b doesn't exist either then. There are a thousand things we're told exist but we've never seen for ourselves.

Just because you can't physically see or experience something for yourself doesn't mean it does not exist.

I say this with all due respect, I'm not sure why Objectivists feel threatened by the notion that some may believe outside their perceived and self-defined box.

Ayn Rejected all forms of faith and belief in the supernatural. All kinds of contradictory ideas can coexist in someone's head if he isn't careful or doesn't care, but not within a rational philosophy that rejects contradictions, let alone its literal opposite. You should read Leonard Peikoff's systematic presentation in his book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" to see what she formulated in her philosophy and why.

She once gave a famous very brief "standing on one foot" summary in terms of the following principles, but this (as she said) isn't enough for a full understanding of their meaning, their justification and the connections between them:

"At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

"If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

"If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that..."

See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/object... for the rest of this summary.

Because God's don't objectively exist.

We vote to select one person to be in power from an alternative that we have no choice over. Voting by nature is not a philosophical endorsement. One of several important factors is the candidate's mental abilities to act and behave rationally and competently, including but not limited to not pursuing theocratic agendas and not being a crackpot flake.

Not much is now known publicly about Brat other than vague free market tendencies and slogans, with a religious twist. It behooves us to find out. There will be no candidates anywhere near a rational ideal in many aspects for a very long time (if ever).

"Atheism" as such is secondary; it is a negative position only denying belief in the supernatural and tells us nothing about what the person does believe.

No, I don't do speculative "mind exercises" trying to imagine a super consciousness planning how to sustain life. That is not a valid way of obtaining knowledge. We start by observing reality as it is, not with speculative "faith".

That is _not_ what Ayn Rand said about abstracting universals. The meaning of a concept is the units subsumed by it, with essential characteristics in common to some degree and integrated as a mental entity concretized by a word as a verbal symbol, not something to be "found" and "gleaned from a word" by "subtracting" reality. Her theory of omitted measurements in concept formation has nothing to do with supernatural speculation "found" by "subtracting" logical inference. These attempts to rationalize mysticism in the name of Ayn Rand have nothing to do with her philosophy and are rationalistic gibberish.

"Hope" simply means the ability to move into the future (abstraction).
You need to subtract from what you think about the word in order to glean meaning from the word.

This conversation reminds me of when Ayn and a theologian were arguing about universals. "What makes a rose a rose?", was the thought. The theologian said: "It's "rose-ness" is what makes it a rose."
Ayn correctly retorted: "There is no such thing as "rose-ness"!"
Then the theologian asked: "Then what is it?"
This is when Ayn discovered the Objectivist principle of universals. You have to subtract in order to find the meaning.
It's the same thought here. You need to subtract the "implied and inferred" meaning to get to the universal truth.
I'm sure that you will make it.

You aren't seeing this in the proper context if you think religious belief isn't selfish or rational.

Where science, atheism, and objectivism stop religion begins. It is entirely selfish to want to live beyond your life. In those ways it is perfectly rational to look for ways to avoid those things. Science, atheism and objectivism have no answer to these questions.

Christianity has not been overthrown by the Enlightenment by any means, not when 70% of the US professes Christ in one way or another. Christianity provides a functional and acceptable social/personal code of conduct that prohibits the need for government controls (totalitarianism). The Framers didn't choose the word "inalienable" for no reason, they put certain rights above the ability of men to alter, pretty shrewd if you ask me.

Science deconstructs what is to understand it - it creates nothing and theorizes much.

Athiesm and Objectivism each have no answer for creation.

I'm not sure why you would take a point when I asked a question and was prepared to give you a rational answer.

You can do a mind exercise: Think of yourself as a hyper-intelligent being on a planet which has the ability to sustain life. How would you plan for life to exist and thrive? Would you not take what is available to you and make a reproductive plan?
It's an abstaction.
Then: Think about yourself being the life that was created and how you would

create more and better life from the pattern that you have been given. That is extrapolation.

Faith is extapolation and abstraction.

This reminds me of the conversation between Ayn and the theologian about universals. The argument was: "What makes a rose a rose?". Ayn concluded that you need to subtract inferred meaning in order to grasp fundamentals. It's the same thought here.
NOW: Faith is a

It’s true that there's no such thing as "theistic Objectivism," but in the political real world, theistic admirers of Ayn Rand's political philosophy is the best we can expect at the moment. No avowed atheist has a chance to be elected to any higher federal office.

Mysticism is not selfish and belief in the supernatural is not rational. The original Christianity was fundamentally other-worldly, preoccupied with saving one's "soul" in another, mystical world. Helping others here on earth was a distant second. It was individualistic only in concern with one's own soul in a mystic realm apart from life on earth, with an irrational duty to love everyone else as one's self as a means to soul saving. It was selflessly sacrificial for one's own life here on earth, which is the only place there is.

Ayn Rand advocated man's nature as the standard of morality and one's own happiness here on earth as the moral goal for each individual. She rejected all forms of the supernatural and mysticism, and categorically rejected -- not "discounted" -- mysticism posing as "rational belief". Mystical "self-orientation" with a mystical "purpose" is not rational and not in one's self interest. Most professed Christians in this country have been better than than, with mixed premises, while not realizing that Christianity is the philosophy of the Dark and Middle Ages that were overthrown by the Enlightenment making American individualism possible.

Belief in God is quite self-oriented, selfish, and purposeful. I'm not sure how or why the "reason" of Objectivism discounts the very rational belief.

Things that can only be "hoped for" and cannot be "seen" does not mean "deductive and inductive reasoning". "Hope" is not "evidence". The quote means speculating in defiance of the lack of evidence. It does not "dovetail" with Objectivism. "Believe it or not" yourself with your faith in absence of reason, but it has nothing in fact to do with Objectivism.

Please explain to me how believing in a deity is not an Objective pursuit and cannot co-exist with Rand's philosophy?

There is no such thing as "theistic Objectivism". That is a self-contradiction. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a coherent position relating all the major topics of the branches of philosophy, not a Chinese menu of out of context slogans amenable to grafting with diametrically opposite positions like mysticism.

If that is what Brat is doing then it _is_ nefarious, but there has been no evidence so far that he is doing that. There are no details at all so far available on his views of Ayn Rand's philosophy. There are many possibilities.

"Faith is the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for."
This very lengthy phrase from Paul would be translated into modern and succinct language as: Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.
With all due respect, context dropping and concept swapping is why there is so much confusion about Bible quotes and/or teachings. It's much simpler than religion makes it out to be. In fact, it dovetails with Objectivism. (Believe it or not.)

They have no idea whether or to what extent he is teaching Ayn Rand. Under the BB&&T funded programs Ayn Rand is typically (but not necessarily) _included_ in teaching about the moral foundations of capitalism. Brat says he "appreciates" Ayn Rand's arguments for freedom and markets but does not agree with her. He has a long history of explicitly promoting religion. He may or may not be properly explaining some aspects of Atlas Shrugged as he takes what he wants from it to push his contrary religious agenda. If he is in fact including Atlas Shrugged then at least students are able to see it for themselves, but they may be subjected to sophistry distorting it to support something else, causing distortions making it much more difficult for them to assess it for what it is.

That is not what faith means. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or despite the evidence. It is the opposite of reason, not a "long term thought process" of reason.

Typically frightened "off" from what? The legitimate fear is of the consequences of rejecting reason for faith when carried out in principle, not some isolated person throwing out a god cliche.

Link to summary: http://www.roanoke.edu/business/SEINFORM...

Looking for full article: http://ariarmstrong.com/2014/06/where-is...

So someone finally gets us.

"In my opinion, too many gulchers seem to be at the least agnostic if not actually Atheists."

True. So what the problem?