I think y'all lost me at the underlying assumption that 'God' exists...

but that shouldn't surprise some of you, eh?
:)

I agree. We need to hold logic as a foundational principle. But I'm confused. This is the reasoning at the end of your last post.

IF assumption (I believe that logic is a belief system) THEN conclusion (we are in a subjective realm. anything goes, as it were). I agree with the logic, but your assumption is false. Nobody defined logic as a belief system, because it is not. I think we both agreed on that already. Why did you proposed that then?

I'm still waiting to see the rigorous proof of your hypothesis about logic being suspended for belief. Or do you claim it is an axiom, self evident and needs no proof?

Allow me to proof the opposite. I know* that people believe things and make decisions that are perfectly logical according to those beliefs, even when the beliefs are wrong. Of course the result is not good, which is logical, right? Logic was not suspended, on the contrary, from the bad result it was demonstrated once again that logic never sleeps. You can ignore reality, but reality will never ignore you. (* I know means I have collected the evidence).

My fight is not against beliefs as it seems it is yours. It is against wrong beliefs or assumptions that are the base for contradictions. Here I have a strong belief: I believe that every contradiction can be removed. So far it only helped me building logical connections and new knowledge.

Thank you for provoking me to think.

dictionary.com: definition 2:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
"a statement unworthy of belief."if we do not hold logic as a foundational principle, how could we possible discern how to move forward with a concept. If I believe that logic is a belief system, we are in a subjective realm. anything goes, as it were

Hi Maritimus

Thank you. Checking own assumptions always is a good advice for everyone.

Your request for definitions is not only pertinent but definitely necessary, because when two people give two different meanings to the same word, the only thing that is communicated is confusion. I prepared a reply with more than 1000 words (I missed a picture) and then I decided to extend to you all the respect of cut and edit. Now it is shorter.

Logic: I found two definitions in the Cambridge Dictionary (CD): 1) a particular way of thinking, esp. one that is reasonable and based on good judgment; 2) a formal, scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas.
Although I'm fine with both, I give you here mine: the mechanism that the mind uses to know things. Note the difference between perception and knowledge. We know by logic.

Belief: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true. I accept this definition found in CD.

Understanding: here CD offers several definitions, one is similar to belief, another is knowledge, another is agreement. My definition is getting a reasonable certainty of the cause and effect relationship that allows to know how something is true or existent.

Faith: a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone. This is the definition in CD and I accept it.

As you asked this to guide me (thanks) I will return the favor. How would you classify the statement "Logic is always suspended for belief"? Is it knowledge, understanding, or belief?

So if I understand you correctly, there is nothing rational about believing in something to come after death. I think that would depend entirely about what one believes is the purpose of life itself and the origin of such. If we are born from nothing to dissolve into nothing, I can see how one might take such a view. If one takes the opposite stance, however (that we existed before this and will continue to exist afterward, ie that this life is a stepping stone to something else), the whole equation changes substantially. The investment period and market suddenly looks very different indeed.

If life is a zero-sum game, it would be pretty difficult to not want to maximize your experience through the only means you think you have. I think that is the difference religion (specifically Christianity) brings: it tells you that life is not a zero-sum game and that there is a definite purpose to our being here: a preparation for the next life (or stage of existence). To me, the idea of a pointless existence seems just that: without purpose or meaning. If in the end, my status is relegation to the Void, absolutely nothing I do here matters one whit _to me_. If I cease to exist, others memories of me do not benefit me. My inventions cease to benefit me. Nothing can benefit _me_ at that point. If I live for myself and do not seek my own destruction, this is quite a shattering revelation. Recognizing this simple conclusion, I turn the assertion on its head and start over with the proposition that because creation without a purpose would serve no logical sense, that there must be a purpose to creation. Then the pursuit becomes to discover that purpose and confirm my hypothesis.

The very first corollaries I must then address involve my existence: that I AM/exist, that I can recognize my own self as differentiated from my environment, and that I have the ability to affect my environment and not simply be affected - I can choose and act. The next involves my destiny: what choices do I have and what future do I want? Choices are investments in our future selves. I must recognize that my choices will lead me somewhere. Now I have to decide what I want that "somewhere" to look like. If I can not create my own reality and destination by force of will alone (acknowledged to be absurd), I must then obtain the set of possible outcomes and decide from them.

But just as in navigating the stars, we can not plot a course unless we know where we have come from as well as where we are currently and where we desire to end up. Take Lewis Carroll's conversation between the Cheshire Cat and Alice when she asks which road she should choose. His response is that it all depends on where she wants to go. She realizes at this point she doesn't really know where she wants to go, and his response is the crux: then it really doesn't matter which road you take - i.e. no investment is likely to result in a return. It is only if we have an idea of where we want to end up that we can even evaluate that potential state in comparison to our present state and determine worth.

To me, the question you ask is a result of the predetermination that one can not evaluate the destination because there is no way to know either where they came from, where they are, or where they are going and thus no purpose. I am unsatisfied and unpersuaded by that line of reasoning.

Hi, Fish.
It seems to me that you should check your assumptions and your definitions. What are logic, belief, understanding and faith to you? If you would spell them out for all of us to see, we might have a start of a very good conversation. I hope that you do not mind my barging into this uninvited.

making decisions as an investment for the afterlife which are against your nature in this life. By nature, I mean rational.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "invest against yourself". Can you explain?

"Logic is always suspended for belief." This is a belief, isn't it? :)

If one is a true objectivist one would not ask that question. What do the Osteen's produce that is of use in industry, or to the populace? I consider myself to be a Christian, but must admit that Marx was not far off with his remark about an "opiate of the masses" Joel & Victoria and their followers are proof of that.
With regard to Mother Theresa, if you had experienced the 3rd World, in SW Asia, or Africa, you'd realize that many questionable things are done just to keep the doors open. The question is not which politicians are corrupt but who is not.

The content of my reasoning is present in my other post down there V I did not feel the need to repeat it here, 2 posts above

barwick- I am willing to listen to your arguments, but they must have objective content. step outside yourself for moment-you just wasted a comment. there is no objective facts in your last comment. there is cynicism. it was clever...signifying nothing

belief does not equal logic. Logic is always suspended for belief. It's important to acknowledge this.

yes

You can find wisdom in a lot of places, Osteen may have some worldly wisdom, that's all well and good. Heck, he may even find some of that in the Bible and translate into worldly wisdom, but he's certainly not a Biblical Christian.

That said, I can find popcorn in a dumpster... but I won't eat it

Another way to manipulate/control people for the benefit of those defining either "god"or "state", without the basis of logic or fact.

Beautiful!

Amen

blah, blah, blah... I agree that the Van Osteens are pop hip-hop Christianity. But I know an ordained Baptist minister who finds wisdom in Joel's books. As an atheist myself, it is not my place to argue with him about that. I just accept my friend a man of integrity upon whom I can depend. End of line.

I see you like controversy :-)

First, I agree on what you say about doing good for others is definitely in self interest: there is satisfaction in it and increases hapiness, not only the interest of receiving a tangible reward.

Regarding what you say about Jesus sacrificing his life, it is a mystery for christians of all times. Talking about this, I can't say a word ignoring faith, so the following is just based on faith. Jesus is (alive) both God and Man, so it is very hard to judge his actions only based on human categories. However, since I believe He resurrected, I wouldn't dare to question his logic :). By the way, St Paul said this, if Jesus didn't resurrect, all our faith is vain.

Jesus never promoted martyrdom as an ideal. But even John Galt was tortured and refused to give up on his ideals, right? Please, think again before compairing martyrs (who never wanted martyrdom) with jihadists. Huge difference.

Thank you for that clarification. I also think the same (I believe). I follow the greek knowledge on this: you cannot love what you don't know. And you love only what is good to your eyes. Evil MUST be abhorred. (All this is christian teaching as well).
The difficult part is not to hate the evil doers. I'm afraid that I fail at that with some people, but that is what I should do.
To show how wrong that assumption about christianity is I'm including here a quote from Saint Paul, one of the greatests among the first in christianity, who said "We urged you when we were with you not to let anyone eat who refused to work." and later "...though you are not to treat him as an enemy, but to correct him as a brother." (Thessalonians 3, 10, 15).

I think I disagree. I ask you to clarify your point. Loving indiscriminately does not lead to a value for value exchange. Value is discriminate. The concept of amorphous love everybody, BE love is tribal and threatens man's true nature. It's often used as a wash. A constant clean slate. No, actions have consequences. There IS evil in the World, and you should not love it

The only thing I see as fraud is a sacrifice that goes against your true nature in this life. If you believe in an afterlife, fine by me. I think it's dangerous business to "invest" against yourself or to ask others to do the same for an afterlife.

Yes, I saw barwick's comments and that was a partial description in my opinion. I am not defending the Osteen's, I'd probably do the opposite (see your comment about doing things in the name of....). I just took the last statement in the article as the accepted assumption about christianity and said it is wrong.

Regarding your statement about the craziness of loving the neighbor like you love yourself, I must say that this thing of meaning good to others like I do to myself is the base to exhange value for value. I believe that any person will recognize the experience of more satisfaction when the delivered value exceeded the expectations instead of triggering a bad feeling of not charging enough in the first place. I think is the opposite of crazy.

My definition for sacrifice obviously differs substantially. For me, sacrifice = investment: something every human being participates in, making it decidedly a human activity. Sacrifice is choosing to give up something now for something better later. The only reason the terms aren't used interchangeably IMHO is that one implies monetary considerations (investment) while the other (sacrifice) is more general.

The real question being presented is whether or not there is really investment taking place in religion or whether it is all a fraud - something spent for nothing in return. The assumption presented by khalling is that it is all a fraud. Obviously Christians disagree. For those who don't believe in God or an afterlife, there is nothing there to invest in. For those who do believe, they see their actions here as leading to opportunities there. Ultimately, however, everyone has to make their own call on what they want to believe. We'll all ultimately either know the truth by being confronted with it or it won't matter a bit. But it's also probably the single biggest choice you will make in your life. It's worth not rushing into with preconceptions.