Hello RMP,
I maintain, as did Jefferson "... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." However, regardless of my personal beliefs, this is a site dedicated to objectivism and thumping the Bible on the heads of those that do not believe when the only evidence of one's belief is faith without empirical evidence is bound to ruffle feathers. It is probably best for the sake of comity if we avoid the subject unless God performs a demonstrable miracle that can be recorded and demonstrated empirically. If it were substantial and demonstrable, that would force Objectivsts to re-examine their positions as it may no longer be in the realm of arbitrary. On the other hand I do not see how objectivists are harmed by believers that practice objectivist principles in this temporal existence so long as they recognize they will also not persuade objectivists without empirical evidence and should let it be. It has been abundantly clear that the true believers are not persuaded by the argument that lack of evidence is sufficient to dismiss their faith, though to objectivists faith is arbitrary and thus not fact. People will decide one way or the other in their own time.
I know that years of investigating the best arguments and arguing this issue have, for me, produced no irrefutable evidence. I remain open to evidence, but until confronted with something that could not be explained as a result of the law of causality, I have no opinion I can substantiate to others. It is arbitrary; Therefore not objectivist.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Only force succeeded in stopping Hare Krishna from proselytizing and begging for money in airports. Stopping the born again will be just as difficult. I just leave the field and go to other more rational discussion.

"militant" and "radical" atheists. these terms are also used to describe objectivists

Let's look at the differences.

Metaphysics A=A or A is what god says it is right now

Epistemology Reason (logic and evidence) vs. revealed truth

Ethics Rational self interest vs Altruism.

But try to pin them down on these realities and they shift like the sand. Not to mention their inane attempts to show the United States was found on christianity. It was not. The US was founded on reason and Natural Rights. Christians can take credit for the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, thousands of religious wars, poverty and ignorance.. However, since it was not revealed to be so in their stupid book, no amount of evidence will convince them of this.

Great post. I have been thinking about making a post like this myself. What I notice is that it is never the atheists who bring up the subject of faith, it is always the Christians. And the Christians proceed to beat everyone else relentlessly trying to prove they are true Objectivists and Christians.
I will never understand this. I am not an atheist, and I accept that to be 100% Objectivist I would need to be atheist, because the principles of Objectivism do not include faith in anything without rational proof. But I am 100% engaged in the Gulch, and even believe if there is ever a real physical Gulch I will be a valued member.
My point is that it's not the atheists who seem to keep injecting this argument into the discussion. Why can't the religionists keep religion out of the Gulch?

I'm not a religious person and have not felt compelled to be so. My parents never had me baptized, leaving the choice to me, should I want to, as an informed adult. I have no problem if someone is. Just don't expect to sway me to that viewpoint. My minister uncle has tried for years to no avail. On this forum, it strikes a dissonant chord when discussing things from a viewpoint of logic. Then the discussion devolves into indignant name calling, pulpit thumping and generally heated diatribes, with nothing resolved or accomplished in any positive manner.

I agree with RMP's request to refrain from arguing about religion because no one will have a satisfactory engagement. I think that there are a plethora of other sites on which to discuss religion and it's application to whatever the commenter thinks its value is. From an objective point of view, it just comes across as an irrational belief in an entity for which there is no proof. On that note, I will close. I enjoy the discourse here with many, but religion is something I will leave out of it.

Respectfully,
NMA

I absolutely agree. I keep trying to tell the world, "Please, Please, go have your religion, believe in what you will, just stop ramming it down my throat". Doesn't seem to work. From an Objectivist view, I lean towards the Phd who wrote "We have Never been Alone", and who explained how all the great religions could be just aliens who had a butt ton of technology and who did a little genetic engineering to make some nice slave races. Break them up into their own little districts, then try to explain to the savages what to do and why, and you need an interface. Here come the priests. They tell you what to do, when to do it, and how. Sort of like today. No proof needed, "God" tells you what to do. His priest tells you what to do. These beings get rowdy and start fighting,so you have the wars of biblical times. Take this dude YVHY (Yahvee) who takes his boys out, gives them a whole bunch of rules and stuff, and gets pissed when they can't seem to follow them for a day or two. Then Marduke (another one of them) has his gang in the same place that YVHY wants to put his, and they have a little war. Sodom and Gomorrah ended up on the wrong side of an alien disagreement over some resources or whatever. There is enough factual (read legend, stories, history, writings) to at least make this whole idea as supportive as any other. Since no one can explain how "civilization" just popped up about 6-8 thousand years ago, from almost nothing, and started to slap together some damn big ziggurats, I am open to any theory that can take some facts from history and explain it. And in light of our current civilizations propensity to manipulate communications, twist facts to match their reality, and use their religion to justify all kinds of means things to others, I am OK with the alien idea. It fits a lot of facts and connects a lot of unrelated events. It explains why the Church has been able to get away with all kinds of "sin" for 2,000 years, and yet God doesn't seem to mind. And why a huge herd of neobarbarians can claim their God tells them to kill me, and "my God" says "love thy neighbor" etc, even as he stabs you. Religion is a tool used by the churches to manipulate people to do what serves them best. Some are good, no doubt, but I believe religion has done more damage to individuals than it has ever helped. Please don't weird out on me over the alien idea, I just offer it as an alternative to explain what facts are there..It doesn't matter, they hauled ass out of here a couple thousand years ago. And really, ever since then, the "priest" caste" has been riding our collective asses into the ground.

In my mind, religion only exists in place of reason because of the fear of death. All the morality, all of the social ethics we need can be fulfilled by reason. The promise of life after death is too good for most of mankind to pass up. They are more than willing to suppress any parts of the reasoning process that will not allow them to have faith in their concept of heaven. This is the barrier that Objectivism has not been able to overcome and it is formidable indeed.

I don't excuse the religious sermonizing, but some of the religious discussion raises a question of the nature of values/morals that is interesting to me.

Religious person: I believe in a god, but it only informs applies to spiritual and values issues. This spiritual view directs me toward using reason to understand the world and accept Objectivism.
Atheist: By believing in gods, you're doing something irrational, contrary to Objectivism.
Religious person: My religion is based on faith. It can't be irrational or rational. Those apply only to the real world, which I approach rationally. Religion concerns itself with values and spirit.
Atheist: The very notion of "spirit" is irrational. Values should not rest stuff someone made up.

If the religious person says religion has no effect whatsoever on anything in the real world, then I don't see a problem with it or any reason even to discuss it at all. As rockymountainpirate says, just move on.

If they're saying religion is the foundation of their value system, values that affect how they interact with the real world, there's a reason to talk about it. Some people more knowledgeable about philosophy than I am have said values rest on reason, or something like that. I'm philosophically unsophisticated, so it feels to me like my values came from my parents and culture. That's an arbitrary source, so I can see a person from a religious background saying religion informs their values.

Is there a non-fiction book by Rand or anyone that addresses the question of the source of our values?