Lots of words there ... but I'll bet you cannot come up with a single, objective factor that guarantees "happiness" at all times, for all people.
Because, you see, that is what "objective happiness" has to be. It CANNOT vary by individual or by time, because that would make it subjective happiness.
You're propounding a view of happiness that makes it like a feat of engineering: this input must produce "Happiness" as a result."
I'll bet you can't even define "happiness" in a way that is objectively testable!
And you have no evidence Rand's atheism was primary. She explicitly details why reason and reality are her givens, and that atheism is derived from that.
Well, she says that "reason and reality" are her givens ... but her philosophy ends up being neither reasonable nor in contact with reality. Something as real and natural as parenthood crushes her central thesis of self-interest. No parent can morally live as "an end in himself."
One must conclude that Rand chose her premises on some other basis than reason or reality; she clearly wanted to arrive at (most of) the commonly-held set of Western moral principles, but it is just as clear that she needed to find a moral basis other than that which had guided the morality of Western Civilization; i.e., a theistic worldview.
Rand's laughably flawed descriptions of Christian belief are proof enough of her virulently athiest world-view. One gets the impression that her description of toddler Dagny Taggart's tantrum in church is an autobiographical fantasy scene ... we get the impression that Rand has always been an atheist.
When you couple the two points ... yes, it's very reasonable to conclude that Rand's atheism came first.
Yes we can come up with a definiton of happiness that is universally applicable at all times. It would be a weighty project but doable. I believe Aristotle gave it a pretty good shot. Healthy mind, healthy body, adequate economic conditions, liberty, productive work, positive relationships etc...overall flourishing in every human sense.
You're trying hard to reconcile your belief in otherworldy reality with a happy life on earth. But if happiness isn't objective, why are you so obsessed with being happy in Heaven with God? Assuming you're as religious as you sound, that is.
Every religionist - like you - is - has to be - at root a fanatic. You can't prove your beliefs so you resort to nonsense. I gave you an objective definiton of happiness, your response was "lots of words there". Do you understand that such a response is linguistically, logically and empirically absurd? Is that within your intellectual grasp, or am I wasting my breath here?