All that article demonstrates is the obtuseness of self-labeled objectivists with respect to the concept of God, and the ease in which such an author can create a strawman.
Is there any objectivist whatsoever who actually understands the monotheistic concept of God?
My personal response to the "monotheistic concept" can be seen in "An Essay Questioning the Validity of Religions." The commentary was written before I had thoroughly introduced myself to Objectivism's refutation of religion, but I have found myself to come to nearly the same conclusions. You can find the whole essay at
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/religion.html I will quote, in particular, 5 theories concerning a Supreme Being that are more plausible than the standard Christian "monotheistic concept." You may need to read the remainder of the article to interpret them in context.
"Number one: A Creative Entity does not exist. Perhaps the flight of the Israelites was horribly exaggerated, since no written records of the Exodus existed before the reign of Solomon some three centuries later. Having been passed down by word of mouth, the story was twisted and hyperbolized by every generation until it became a myth of divine power instead of a simple tale describing a journey of a small tribe of exiles. Since we cannot yet fully comprehend the nature of our world's creation, we cannot state with certainly that our universe did not form because a singularity exploded on its own, without any external help, or that the universe as a whole had existed indefinitely back through the ages, and that the sole acts of creation were the explicable reconfigurations of structures formed by its matter. Some may then question the means by which the advent of life came about due to a more than minuscule chance of a one-celled organism developing at random. Yet one must understand that the first life forms on Earth appeared some two billion years after it was created, and in such a lengthy period of time it is not unlikely that this small chance of an organism forming was realized at least once. Thus, since a Creative Entity does not exist, it could not have saved a people who had the misconception of being its "chosen tribe." (Which in itself is a contradiction. Why would the Lord of All attach Himself to a small tribe when he could have worked to aid all of his "children?")
Number two: The Creative Entity is cruel and enjoys not only seeing human suffering but giving them hope that they will be saved while in reality augmenting their miseries instead. Or it may be something similar to the Aztec Huitzlopochtli, who was said to have required human blood to rise every morning. Perhaps saving the Holocaust victims was not part of "God's grand scheme of things," but think about it. What is the purpose of a scheme that does not value so sacred a concept as human life?
Number three: The Creative Entity is dead. Herr Nietzsche would explain this with much greater clarity than the author of this piece. That, however, explains why the number of God's miracles gradually decreased as time progressed and disappeared altogether sometime around the 970s AD, when the caliphs of Arabia, supposedly spiritual descendants of Mohammad, had become secular rulers of fragmented states increasingly practicing the tenets of their faith in name only. Even assuming that all events from Late Genesis to the last of the Letters to the Last Testament of the Koran had actually taken place (which is doubtful), there is nothing that would invalidate the theory of God's death. Quite the contrary, had He remained alive, there would have been a Super-New Testament relating His most recent miracles to the masses.
Number four: The Creative Entity is alive and functional, but he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Just like we humans sometimes do not understand the mechanisms behind our wristwatches, neither does God comprehend the events of our universe in their entirety and complete detail. After all, it may very well be that a vast world of superbeings exists out there and that a certain watchmaker sells His wares, the universes that He creates for a living, to customers who may not be enlightened in the technicalities of universal creation and upkeep. It may very well be that the Creative Entity has limitations when it comes to fiddling with matters so small as those that concern our species. There is even a scientific possibility that the Creative Entity dwells within black holes and other singularities (that is a possible means of explaining their power of attraction and lack of adherence to the Laws of Physics, but their very existence, as well as this theory, remains on shaky footing at best), but since we do not witness the effect of such natural phenomena upon our planet, we can conclude that God's sphere of influence does not encompass the domain of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Number five: The Creative Entity is both alive and omnipotent, yet He is neither merciful nor forgiving, since He imposes inexplicably harsh punishments on anyone who violates even the least significant of His precepts even once even by accident (i.e. every single human being who had ever lived, lives, or will live)."
Since I have written this, I have become even more atheistic and can now with confidence uphold #1 of the above. I have also moved away from trusting the modern "cosmological" orthodoxy with such matters as the Big Bang theory of creation, which is in fact similarly theological.