I find that this argument is only tenable if you re-define 'god' as 'whatever Ayn Rand believed in'. All three of the above definitions of god include the assumption of an irrational attachment to a power, symbol, or actual thing.

If you remove that assumption of irrationality, then 'god' becomes merely a word, such as when an atheist says, "God bless you!" when a friend sneezes.

Jan

God's don't exist. Money does. You need a better dictionary.

It was always my impression that she would have acknowledged that something created the cosmos and everything in it if she had been allowed to by the press...they were all hung up on the mystical opposed to the quantum physical truth...and everyone still is.
I remember her saying that we do not know what that is, but it is...so get over it-(paraphrased) she was pissed off at the question.

Everyone is still hung up on the word or misconception of a "God" and it has meant many perverted, stupid things in the past. I use "creator" because that's what it is in effect, we have no clue what it is but it is self-evident, things did not get this precise all by themselves...simple stupid, right?
I still get the impression that Ayn would of favored that view in objectiveism.

watch the only thing Bill Mayer has done that I think is good. The movie RELIGULOUS.

There are hundreds of gods, with many many "beliefs"- some of them totally ridiculous.

People can do what they want, but not be in positions of governmental power where they can enforce their beliefs on the rest of us.