You could still find many of her ideas compelling and accept them. Much of her political ideas could be accepted by Christians, for example. The conflict will invariably come with the primacy of existence metaphysics that she championed. There's no way to believe in any sort of supernatural existence while accepting this philosophy, as a consciousness couldn't exist before existence. So, understand that this is the conflict, and the reason she was an atheist. Feel free to accept other parts of her philosophy that you do agree with. Perhaps, someday you will accept the primacy of existence too, but I wouldn't say it's essential to be a fan, and certainly not essential to appreciate her work.

If you accept the primacy of existence, reality, and individual natural rights as well as reasoning over emotion, there's really no room for superstition, mysticism, or religion.

I reject the word "follower".

The fundamental here is ones rules of evidence. What does one's integrity demand before saying something is true?

I consider religion as the fraction of philosophy based on mysticism and claiming knowledge of the unknowable. That's only one of many fallacious assumptions that prevent one from achieving what Rand did...

She, for the first time, created a fully integrated and comprehensive system of philosophy. By comprehensive, I don't mean addressing all issues but at her level of abstraction having a consistency and match to reality that heretofore didn't exist, I like to say that she did for philosophy, what Newton did for physics. Newton didn't have all the answers, e.g. Einsteinian discoveries on behavior at a galactic scale - we live at a human scale.

So to address THE question - of course one can follow and agree with many principles and agree with many conclusions of Rand and not some others - people do that all the time with any category of knowledge you care to name.

The split she had with the Libertarian movement originators was over the need for a proper ethics as the basis of one's political theory. She did and they didn't.

So it will serve us well to collaborate with those fighting to regain our freedom independent of what group they classify themselves with. Having consistent reasoning will be critical. One part of that is why we form governments to secure our rights and what justifies our claim to those rights.

I'll defer to the Declaration of Independence and Rand's essay on Individual Rights. And then her essay on The Nature of Government. Unfortunately, many readers and admirers of her fiction have never read the nonfiction - which she wrote to explain the way she came to ideas that she used to animate her fictional characters.

That provides the tools for thinking that can change our culture to regain and retain our freedom.

You cannot keep a self-willed individual from championing Ayn Rand's philosophy - whether or not they are religious. All you can do is tell them not to sit next to you at the lunch table.

Many of the religious individuals who contribute to this list have rational arguments and worthwhile perspectives. They are welcome to sit next to me at the lunch table.

Jan, agnostic

I am so glad someone else started this thread. First let me say too many on this thread are parsing words to avoid the topic. Follower, believer, subscriber. I mean really. To follow does not in itself mean "blind."
Having said that and moving this BACK to the MEANING of the topic lets look at this comparing Biblical AND Rand's Collectivism.

https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/overview

Objectivism:
• Follow reason, not whims or faith.
• Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.
• Earn genuine self-esteem.
• Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.
• Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.


First let’s take the REAL definition of some words so we can apply proper context.
Full Definition of REASON
Mirriam-Webster
1a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity

Follower:
Full Definition of FOLLOWER
1a : one in the service of another : retainer
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates another
2archaic : one that chases
3: a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture or other deed
4: a machine part that receives motion from another part
5: a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm's magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion into the chamber
6: fan, devotee

The PRIMARY facet of collectivism is REASON. Definition 1a and 1b, clearly imply that there is an explanation for your thinking, and a rational. This excludes the statements that some religions use, well that is the greatest mystery and you must take it on faith. But does that mean religion or atheism is the ONLY way.

Look at the biblical definition of faith. Heb. 11: 1,2: 1. Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. 2. For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them.

Strong’s defines based on the ACTUAL Hebrew the following words. Evident.
evidence: 1650
e[legcoß Elegchos (el'-eng-khos);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 1650

1. a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested
2. conviction
Next the bible counsels people NOT to just accept what they are being told without investigating, and it was considered NOBLE-MINDED to NOT take things on blind faith.
Acts 17: 10-11
10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas out to Be•roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in Thes•sa•lo•ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

Reasoning is also talked about in terms of something acceptable to God.
Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.

Notice the use of the words “power of reason.”

So from one pillar of Collectivism REASON is key and in Christianity reason is not only important, but something considered Noble and Acceptable.

Working hard. Let’s look at one particular scripture that really pounds this home.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.”

Seems pretty clear that when it comes to hard work, the Bible and Ayn Rand are in total agreement. Bible says don’t work then starve.

Self Esteem: That would be your name. Your personal self-worth, something you earn. Hitler earned a name for himself. Solomon indicated how valuable a name is.
Proberbs 22: 1 A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold.
There is no word specifically using the words self-esteem, however the parallels are in how the heart feels and reacts.
Proverbs 15:13 A joyful heart has a good effect on the countenance, but because of the pain of the heart there is a stricken spirit. Dozens of scriptures both old and new testament on how to build your heart i.e. self-esteem.

The last point there are way too many scriptures about trading value for value and owning the product of your own labor.

Answer is YES!!! It is Possible

It is possible to find some common ground, but a true objectivist rejects mysticism. It's a conflict to reason.

Of course it is... while a lot of people who follow (OK, advocate) AR are athiests, it's not a foregone conclusion that you must be an Athiest to follow her writings or teachings... what's extremely difficult is to (a) be a follower of AR, (b) follow a religious belief, and then (c) declare that you have a religious belief to a group of athiests.

I don't know if you remember the ire my "born again athiest" comments have made among those who were easily offended by having their "rational belief system" questioned... it was not unlike telling a Fundie Christian that the "my way or the highway" religion they practice was wrong... opens the floodgates of prosthetylizing.

No, one does not *have* to be an athest to follow AR, no more than does one "have" to be an emigree from a once free country turned people's republic to know the soviet system is a system of looters and freeloaders.

One does NOT have to be a clone of Rand to adhere to and follow her rational discourse... People are people, and to like someone, to adhere to their sense of right and wrong, does not mean you have to *be* them. (Thank God, as I look awful in short hair!! :-) )

I believe that it is, and this was not an easy conclusion for me, I had to really think about it for two weeks after I finished the book, Atlas Shrugged. I am a nondenominational Christian. I do not go to church, and I believe that while the bible is a collection of very good stories, it is not proven nonfiction, but would be of excellent use to propaganda. And by propaganda, I mean it is very useful in creating obedience...
I also have a very strong belief that a thinking person is incapable of following any one philosophy 100%. If a person were to truly consider all the aspects of the philosophy, inevitably most reasonable people will disagree with some part of it. Having said that, Objectivism, would be the closest philosophy that I have found to describe my own lifestyle, or at least the lifestyle that I strive to achieve. I am also a believer in a higher power, I have seen too many miracles that could simply be nothing but a miracle.
I also believe that it is arrogant to believe that there is no creator. I believe something had to start life.

In response to the original question, I believe it is possible too. I know, because I love Atlas Shrugged and am not an atheist.

Absolutely possible. And we're not "followers" of Ayn, we're running alongside with common beliefs that are close enough to be together in our direction. Remember her quote about the smallest "minority" is the individual and we can never stop being that! lets remain all back up front and not be "following" anyone!

I think it is possible. I watched a couple of interviews Rand did with Phil Donahue. In one an audience member started a question by saying she used to be part of her cult. Rand asked Phil to move on and refused to answer the woman's question. Ayn Rand stated emphatically that Objectivism is not a cult. She made it clear that you were free to agree or disagree with her beliefs. She seemed to me to be saying you didn't have to blindly follow all of her beliefs.

Thanks for your provocative comment/question, and for taking a stand that may be unpopular. Another way to ask your question might be, "Is it possible to appreciate Ayn Rand and be interested in her work without agreeing with everything in her writing and the way she lived her life?"

Perhaps it's too strong a contrast, but I compare my Objectivist upbringing to the religions of my peers. While most of my friends and neighbors went to church or synagogue, my family 'worshipped' in the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Through my stepfather (and later, my own reading), Ayn Rand taught me how to think. I have always appreciated her clear exposition of ideas. In her writing, she refuses to let an inconsistency go unaddressed and she articulates the reasoning behind her conclusions. That said, I disagree with some of her conclusions. Further, when she avoids discussing some topics, I have looked elsewhere for answers (still applying her thoughtful, relentless logical process).

To be clear, I certainly recognize irreconcilable differences between Objectivism and Christianity (see The Soul of Atlas: http://SoulofAtlas.com), but I agree that it is possible to be a 'follower' on some points and not on every point.

I'm a Christian and have been following Ayn Rand since I was 16 (many, many decades ago.)

Don't see where a belief, or not holding a belief in God, has much bearing on common sense.

I agree with many other's who have already asserted that "follower" is an incorrect description of the people who hold similar a philosophical outlook as Ayn Rand's objectivism. I already had my way of viewing the world before I came across Ayn Rand's writings but after reading her works I found there were many others with a similar point of view. Ayn Rand basically gave us a way to quantify our world view, that hard work, productivity, combined with objective reasoning, produces value and it's every individual's right to profit from their own labor.

The basis of Objectivism is Man's nature as a being possessing volitional consciousness. I think one could believe that a God created Man with that nature, and accept that everything else Rand professed would still follow from that. One could not, of course, believe anything that any of the major religions say about God and Its relationship to Man.

On a parenthetical note, atheists of the leftist persuasion (at least, those whose blogs I've visited) consider Rand the epitome of evil.

Ayn Rand was an atheist by default. She knew the problem of whether the universe was created or has always existed had no solution. She said as much in an interview, I believe, with Mike Wallace. It should be on you tube.

Your first 7 comments completely 'dodged' your simple question.
Good luck getting a real debate...!

P.S. I think it is possible, also.

If you want to be a Christian and follow the works and philosophy of Ayn Rand my question is simple: It's not who's going to let you. Who's going to stop you?

Followers aren't necessarily consistent in following others. A consistent follower of Ayn Rand would be an atheist because her metaphysics does not accommodate theism well at all. But I can see someone liking her ethics or politics, and perhaps even her epistemology, who compartmentalizes their religious views and keeps them separate.

I am an Independent Objectivist and a Deist. I find no conflict so long as your decision to believe is based in reason.

If you saw the Loch Ness Monster cross the road, it would be irrational NOT to believe. Even if you couldn't prove it to anyone else.

If some people actually do see ghosts (not something I personally believe) it's not even a question of belief for them - it is something they KNOW to be true.

A proper skeptic is properly skeptical, but just because a thing cannot be proven doesn't mean it cannot be true.

Still - this argument only holds for those who have direct personal experience. You should never believe another's extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof.

To use a different perspective, I think Ayn Rand's atheism (antitheism) was primarily a reaction to experiences in her childhood which she took to be universal. Her characterizations of religious belief deal far more with structure than with belief.

One more point...

Atheism is "Not Theism" - it does not specify what you stand for. And that's the important question.

That leave all other fallacies open. Good philosophy is responsible for addressing that.

What all philosophy shares is the questions it needs to address - they are the universals that apply to everyone everywhere in almost all civilized circumstances. Then the challenge is to identify and validate premises. Most people will not be interested in arguing about these, but they do rely on specialists, philosophers, to address these dimensions.

Consider if you are a follower of Ayn Rand or a believer in many of her ideas. For instance, you could agree and feel very much in step with almost all of the points that were expressed in Atlas Shrugged and still believe in God. Your just not a worshipper of the lady herself that thinks she is the incarnation of perfection!

I can not say to much about Ayn Rand herself because reading the book Atlas Shrugged recently was my introduction to Ayn Rand. I believe very strongly in most all the beliefs expressed in Atlas Shrugged but I suspect their would be plenty of things that I would not totally agree with Rand on. But Hey, I really do not think it is possible to find someone that I agree with 100%.

Personally, I was raised Catholic but as an adult I never believed the church's teachings in relation to God. At the same time I strongly dislike being called an atheist because I associate that with being a strong believer that NO God exist. That does not describe me. My belief is simply that no one on earth has any idea of how to explain the existence of the universe. Maybe a God created it or maybe not. If a God did create it, how did the god come into existence? Neither religions nor atheist can really explain things (though religions try with their fair tales).

I believe our inability to even begin to understand this is related to our understanding of time. There is a lot of theoretical study that suggest that time, as we understand it, is simply a figment of our imagination. Much evidence points to the idea that time does not travel in a linear line like we think it does. As long as we believe time is linear, how could you ever have a beginning? You would always have to explain what created the creator. Then you have to explain where the things came from that created the creator...then where those things came from...and on...and on.....and on....and on...etc.