That's only if you don't consider the strong likelihood that Rand's entire philosophy began with her atheism.
Seen in that light, the tenets of Objectivism make a great deal more sense.
I believe that Rand started off (and ended) as an ardent atheist who nevertheless had a strong sense of moral imperatives.
She was not willing to give up her atheism, but she needed to justify morality as a set of "absolute" principles. In essence, she needed a way to create a moral system that yields the last six Commandments without having to deal with the troublesome first four.
Unfortunately for her, the axiomatic underpinnings of her philosophy do not withstand scrutiny -- even when tested by Rand's own standards they collapse.
For example, consider her statement, "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." Which sounds great, until you bring children into the mix.
Quite simply, Rand's philosophy cannot survive contact with the philosophical implications of living in a family.
But in the end, that obvious failure still traces back to her atheist assumptions.
So basically Rand’s philosophy is no more than the Pagan creed that “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.
I agree with you in essence. Speaking at a personal level, her atheism helped shape her philosophy and, for her, was essential to it.
Objectivism, as a whole, is a solid philosophy; surprisingly mature and balanced. It’s the base structure that is it’s weakest point, and why I reject it as a lifestyle philosophy. But I think it offers a lot as an intellectual obstacle course.
When faced with a major decision or a major concept, I try to run my choices through several gauntlets to see which can emerge intact. Rand’s philosophy is one of those gauntlets I run them through. I sometimes reject the results of that particular run, but it almost always shows me any major flaws in my way of thinking.