Of course!
I love Ayn Rand's writings and her philosophy on economics/capitalism and I understand God uses imperfect vessels for His Works; I being one of those imperfect vessels.

I love and give praise to the One True God 'I AM' for all

Existence is everything; you are stuck thinking only of humans.
2. "Mysticism" is a belief in anything without evidence or proof. No boogeyman or scare tactic or vague; that is nonsense. It is an appropriate generalization - includes all gods....

If you claim to be an Objectivist who wants to believe in a god, check your premises.
If you do not even pretend to be an Obj.ist, then this is a meaningless conversation.

All of that does not matter. Mysticism is well-defined and that is where the fundamental conflict lies. All reasonable uses for "god" imply mysticism, and that was what the article was referring to.
Enough playing with words.

Yes, yes. It's a tautology. But existence without consciousness is meaningless, because meaning is value and value can only be derived when one can separate and distinguish one's self from the rest of the universe. If there is no consciousness to pose the observation "I think, therefore I am", it is a completely moot point! You exist and you are conscious. If you existed and were not conscious, you would neither know that fact nor care. I'm done with that argument. If you wish to beat your head against that particular wall, I'm done telling you all you're going to get out of it is a headache.

"it does not matter which god; we are talking generally..."

Is precision in language important, as you claim? If so, we must studiously avoid generalizations and stick to specifics and principles. "Mysticism" is an rather ridiculous boogeyman: a term used as a scare tactic. Why? Precisely because it is an inherently vague and generic term. I strongly suggest that if you want a precise response, you use precise terms in your arguments.

It is not nonsense. If words have meaning, define "god". I am entirely serious. Define precisely and exactly what "god" is. Just waving your hand and saying either "mysticism" or "a supreme being" isn't precise. That is part of the overarching problem with your statement: there are too many definitions of "god" in use in the world! If you want to be specific and say "I do not believe that one can believe in the god of Islam and be an Objectivist", THAT is a specific statement because one is directly referencing a specific set of virtues or characteristics attributed by those of the Islamic faith to their deity. If you want to be specific and say "I do not believe that one can believe in the god of the Scientologists and be an Objectivist", that is also a specific statement. And so on and so forth. But if words have precise meaning, one can not generically reference "god" because there are too many idealizations of the concept of "god"!

If you want others to respond specifically, don't use generalizations yourself. If you have a notion of the type of "god" that you say is irrational, paint us that picture so we can agree with you. Don't just stand in a corner waving a brush around with no easel and no canvas and proclaim yourself an artist.

That is pure nonsense. Words have precise meaning. Atheism is the opposite of theism - a belief in god as a mystical being.
The author of the article in question was really asking can you believe in such a god and be an Objectivist. You are way off the point.

Existence just is, independent of a consciousness.
It needs no explanation - philosophically.
Also, I said earlier that it does not matter which god; we are talking generally about mysticism vs. reality, emotion vs reason.

As I said, I view religion as the inclusive set of values by which one sets his course in life. It is a goal or destination just as much as a path. Viewed that way, religion and philosophy are exactly the same thing. The real question is the goal.

Look at this another way: "god" is an ideal represented in what one hopes to achieve. For some, their god is money. For others, it is power. Some abstract their notion of "god" to be an idealization of the perfect being: man or woman. Rand did that with John Galt just as Christians do it with Christ and Buddhists did it with Buddha. So if you look at it that way, there is no such thing as an atheist - a true atheist would hold no values whatsoever. The only other option would be to hold themselves up as the pinnacle of value - effectively promoting themselves as a "god". I've had enough of those with politicians. ;) Thanks but no thanks.

Pick who you want to become: what set of values is going to rule your life. That concept is your "god". It is your ruler - your standard.

"I have never known a person who believes in god who didn't think god created the universe."

Maybe you need to get around more. I would also ask "Which god?" The way you use it refers almost exclusively to a Christian mindset. So you have a beef with Christians. Big deal. So did Rand. What I am pointing out is that there are a lot more deists than just Christians. Heck, when I was in Greece the old Greek gods were making a comeback. Most of the people who just want to argue do it because they think that it will make them feel good about their own choices. It never does. It is not a question of who is right. It is a question of what is right. If you follow what is right, you have no need to worry about what others do or think because you will side with Reality.

I would also offer a third option for consideration: that consciousness and being are simultaneous - not linear. Why? Because in my opinion both other theories have serious flaws. One can not be conscious and non-existent. There is nothing to exist and be conscious, I agree with you. But the other flaw of existence first followed by consciousness has a flaw of its own: that of origination, i.e. how did consciousness come to be if it at some point it did not exist? How does a once-inanimate object suddenly acquire consciousness? The law of conservation of matter/energy clearly states that something can not originate from nothing. Therefore consciousness either is neither matter nor energy (dark matter?) and so transcends the given laws of the universe...

Which right there brings back into play the whole notion of forces acting in our universe outside the boundaries of known physics, i.e. what some refer to as God. Now do you see why I view the entire argument as ridiculous? It is a red herring - or straw man - or circular logic - depending on how one wants to look at it.

Religion is much more: it is mysticism. Obj.ists reject that totally.
Note that theism is a belief in god; and that is religious. What does it matter which god?

I have never known a person who believes in god who didn't think god created the universe. Why else would they argue that existence of things is evidence of a god?
Regardless: the question that many have gotten away from is can you believe and god and be an Objectivist, and that answer is clearly no!

I'm not sure if people here do not understand Obj.ism, or if people here who call themselves Obj.ists believe in god and are trying to rationalize away the conflict.

Whose angels? ;) The point is that it's an unnecessary fight to pick with no purpose. There are too many individual philosophies and religions to sort through them all. The simpler and easier method is to identify correct principles and see which - if any - are left standing.

I'll bet you can get more angels dancing on the head of a pin than I can, too.

If one argues that a religion is nothing more than a code of conduct - regardless of its source - than everyone is religious. Objectivists tend to use religion and theism synonymously, which is IMHO a grave definitional error. Better to be precise, as there are so many trains of religious/philosophical thought that generalizations are nearly always fallacies of association. Even "theism" is a broad over-generalization, as I would never place the Islamic god Allah in the same vein as any of the hundreds of Hindu gods and goddesses nor would I mix either of those with the Gaiaists, Druids, Wiccans, Satanists, Christians... Well, I hope you get the point.

Um, you asserted unequivocally that theists hold that consciousness predates existence at least twice. Now I've talked to a lot of theists and not one of them holds that position. I freely admit that I do not know the mind of every other theist on the planet nor do I know whether or not they have ever even considered such a position. But that's why I question your assertion in the first place. I allow that all men are free to decide for themselves what they believe and that questions of belief are individual - not congregational. I don't try to put someone in a labeled box just to dismiss or ridicule them for believing differently than I do - unless they're a Progressive and those I will mock without hesitation ;).

But I will also point out that Shakespeare pontificated your very question with the poignant observation: "I think, therefore I am." To me, worrying about and defining one's entire philosophical worth on the predication of thought before existence or existence before thought is ridiculous. If you can't think, does it matter if you are? Does a rock care if it exists? The other obvious conundrum with the entire position is what happens if there is no time? You can not have a predicate without linear sequence.

The entire argument to me is a red herring - even more so since I have yet to hear someone claim he/she has invented a device which can detect or measure the presence of consciousness (which would solve several debates I can think of and help us put qualified people in political office!). It's an argument made for the sake of trying to put someone in a box and nail the lid shut just to make one feel good. I don't choose to make that the hill I die on.

2 things are for sure:
1. You don't understand Objectivism.
2. You have totally missed the point. I never implied knowing about anyone's beliefs - except Objectivists who necessarily hold a well-defined set of beliefs.

So you do claim to speak for others even though you may not have any idea what they believe - only what you think they believe. Two reasons this is a bad idea: most of the time you'll be wrong, and it's just easier (and more polite) to ask. To assert that you know what someone else believes or thinks is both arrogant and borderline coercive and when you project onto others what you think they believe they can turn right around and do the same thing. Nobody benefits from that. Stick to what you believe - don't try to assert for others what they believe unless you have asked and are re-stating what they have told you. I also strongly discourage the aggregation of large groups of people into labels - there is no faster way to fall into the fallacy of association. Stick with principles rather than broad generalizations.

A belief in god is a belief that consciousness precedes existence. And that is clearly in conflict with Obj.ism.

Define love and define "god".

Are you speaking for all theists or are you speaking as an Objectivist? I'd strongly avoid trying to speak for someone else in what they believe or how they think - especially in groups. The only question that really matters is how an individual thinks and what the individual chooses to believe.

I have read that article and concluded that it was an incompetent attempt to say that both adherents to Objectivist philosophy and theists, using the Bible as their philosophical guide, should be able to work together for the benefits of all. Which should be obvious.
What does "loving" Atlas Shrugged and Bible mean? Love has nothing to do with the whole subject.
As pointed out above, what does "welcoming" each other mean in this context? Passion has no place in a philosophical conversations deserving of that name.
I respect you, jb, very much, even as I believe that you might be a theist, while I attempt to adopt and live by the Objectivist philosophy. I will welcome you in my home any time, just let me know when is your arrival. I will even pick you up at the airport, to save you trouble.

Oooookay.
I guess I'm easily confused.

Thank you.
I was beginning to think I was the voice of the turtle.

I agree

god never existed....Ayn Rand did...