A=A well yeah, and so what? Where do you go from there? I dont think logic is a very useful tool with regards to ethical and moral questions. It soon stagnates in tautologies. Im not an objectivist, and I also like Randis work a lot. Im not an expert on him, though, but I reckon the reason why we both enjoy him hides behind the more or less-approximation you make between his and objectivist epistemology. The problem with atheism is that it claims knowledge to areas where humans can only speculate. This is unfortunately a trait atheism shares with religion, the nature of its epistemology thus being fundamentalist. As much as I sympathize with the atheists agenda, I think the atheist position in fact undermines the battle (if you will) against religion by acknowledging belief as a valid basis for knowledge. This, I think, is the core-argument against religion, and being an agnostic I can make use of that. The atheist, on the other hand, must be prepared to prove the non-existence of God in order to state his case. Now - how would one do that?