A Logical Religion (in Off-topic)

This is simply the beginning of a logical religion. There is much more to it, but I will let interest dictate if there is further discussion of it. Why do I post it then? Because I want to. I need no other reason. If you are interested, read on, it is not light, nor fluffy. If you are not go away. Now. As in right now. As in you have read too much at this point right here.

OK, lets start at the beginning, it is as good of a place to start as any. You have two logical answers to the question, were you created by a higher power? You either say yes or no. Let us walk down the negative path, for it is this path the leads you logically to the other. No, you are a totally random creation brought about by millions of years of elemental mixing that accidentally resulted in the first cell, which in turn eventually evolved into the form you currently maintain. So, because of the accidental nature of your creation, this is all you get. Once you are done with your life, you are done, forever. You go from bright mind to nothing in the flick of a switch. All those after death experiences are simply your brain cells firing last gasp efforts for life until all electrical activity ceases and you simply cease to exist. It will not matter one whit how you lived your life. You could have lived your life for good or for evil, for the betterment of mankind or its destruction. All the efforts or sacrifices you make only gain you the pleasure or pain you receive at the moment of doing, and continue only as long as your conscious allows. So grab a gun and slaughter your neighbors, or donate your kidney to save a dieing child, either way, you die the same, and the result of your death is the same. Nothing. Your only hope of continuance is in your progeny, and that is only genetic continuance. Without progeny at the time of your death, you are without question a true dead end, genetically and spiritually, nothing. Wow, that is depressing. Your actions in life are futile, your only true purpose, procreation, and that is simply continuing your species evolution. This, to me at least, is the worst possible outcome. Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing. I am sorry but, this is illogical. It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain. I find depression painful. So even if this is the truth, it is illogical to believe in it, because the only thing that can stem from it is painful. Why believe in something that causes you pain, especially when you can never really know for certain the actual truth. I know some will say, oh but that idea that thought of nothingness and purposelessness does not cause me pain. Well you have not thought it through logically yet or you have not experienced enough in life, and once you do, it will, or it should. I guess psychopaths would fall in that group, but that is because they feel nothing at all, and for the sake of our discussion I will simply assume you reading this are not a psychopath. So logically, if the answer is A or B and B is illogical to believe to be true, the answer must in turn be A. There are only two logical options to answer the question, were you created by a higher power, and we have shown one of those options to be illogical. Not because it does not make sense or could not be true, but because the belief in it is illogical for that belief can only cause pain. It is illogical to choose pain. So we must through application of logic, choose Yes I was created by a higher power.

"It is illogical to choose pain. So we must through application of logic, choose Yes I was created by a higher power."

I am not a religious person myself. Not even a little bit. Though this little blurb of yours that I just quoted is the EXACT reason i would NEVER denounce someone else's religion. I just can't see a way for myself to believe in a higher power, but i do believe that it indeed comforts others greatly, and therefore IS necessary :) If there is a higher power, oops. If not, the people that believe in such things, have managed to, at the very least create hope in life, hope providing strength in times of need, strength helping these people to survive. So I guess, if God(s) truely exist, these people are correct. If not, they have created a higher power none-the-less.

So, in short, whichever way you want to look at it, there is a higher power :)

A very logical reasoning Sefton :P

I personally do not believe in such "higher powers", I'm a man of science and always believe in the "logical" explanation of evolution etc. However, if a group of people believe in something thats intangible, whats to say that it doesn't exist? If dedicating their lives to a higher being makes them feel as if they have a purpose in life then thats all they need.

I once read somewhere that religion was created in the minds of people to create order. Back in a time where they didn't have police and the army (to this extent). The simple thought being: "If I commit this crime, my soul is going to hell in the after-life where it will suffer for eternity". This worked. Many years ago they didn't have police on every corner, but the crime rate was still low. They had created police in the mind of everyone. Nowadays science has more say to the average man and this order has broken down.

I believe that death is the same as not being born.... can you remember not being alive? Exactly.

I have a slightly different no to religion . There's lots of people that are my betters,superior , a better being than me.I'm not going to worship them ! I'm NOT going to worship ANY being no matter the level of it's superiority to me !I can be a virus next to it and in the sense religion the both of us would be of equal worth. Life is just life! Religion gets constantly reinvented time and time again due to need not a recognition of a intelligent design or seeing this thing.Or what ever starts these things going.Did you ever notice a people that have a larger amount of their needs met are less religious .Well I've probably left a lot of holes in my argument but I'm done for now anyways.

My personal religion: Raised as a Christian, but at some point integrated a bit of zenness into it.

If this is all there is then that's cool. If we want to talk about rationality, I know there may be no point in my continued existence and effort I put into being a good person but then again, there's even less point in throwing any of it away and "shooting my neighbours". It also tells me that anything I can amount to is about equal to the achievement that is a bug learning to fly, I guess you could say it's neither unimpressive nor impressive. That's not a bad thing, it just puts into perspective that if there is a higher power, it's something to be respected.

The religious part of me tells me that God's existence is fact rather than fiction. It still doesn't convince me that there's an afterlife but one of about one people that I'll admit to being smarter than myself lived right up to their death with absolute certainty of an afterlife. I gotta say, this gives me hope.


In response to your post Sefton, and in response to my own:

There is rarely as much logic behind religion as there may seem to be but instead a way of allowing ourselves to believe in something we otherwise want to believe.
The opposite is true for those that don't believe; there's always going to be an excuse no matter how strong or feeble to supposedly disprove any religion and they will just as hopelessly as the rest of us choose to accept this rationality.

"Your actions in life are futile, your only true purpose, procreation, and that is simply continuing your species evolution." If you really believe that you are unable to make your part of the world a better place, then yes, you're probably going to have to conjure up a god to justify your existence.

"It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain." Is that how you want to live your life, shying away from reality because you can't cope? Do you believe a large part of the world are dying unnecessarily from war, disease and famine? Do you avoid that truth because it is painful? How is your god helping them?

Well, let's take the issue from a logical (rather than emotional) basis...
By "logical" here, I am talking about "philosophical/rational logic" rather than "is this what I want" sort of logic, as Sefton uses.

Back to first principles we go....

1) I exist. This is axiomatic, since my existence is the first thing that I must assume to be true.
2) I can perceive. This too is axiomatic, since without perception, existence is futile.
3) Here is where it starts to get interesting. If I assume that I can perceive, then I am assuming that there is "something" to perceive; else my ability or otherwise to perceive is meaningless, and hence so is my existence. So, we can assume that there is something in existence other than myself.
4) Having ascertained that I exist and that other things exist, we have a problem: how did the other stuff, and myself, come into existence?

a) The most likely (from the point of view of Occam's razor) would be that I created the stuff. I know I exist - and importantly, I knew that I existed earlier than I knew that the stuff existed (since the first step of the logical deduction was my own existence, while it was the third step that deduced the existence of other things), and I know that the other stuff exists, so it is possible that I created it.
b) The second most likely (from the point of view of Occam's razor) would be that the stuff always existed, and I am an outcome of the stuff.
c) The third and final possibility is that there is something else that I cannot perceive (and therefore must be considered outside of the realm of the "stuff" deduced in step 3) which created both/either myself and/or the stuff. This is the least likely in terms of Occam's razor, since it actually adds complexity to the problem.

So, we have three possibilities which cannot in any way be disproved using conventional logic. The application of Occam's razor in no way gives any information that we didn't already have, and so we have reached a logical dead end.

From here on, every decision is one of faith.
There are a few possibilities: you take it on faith that there is no outside entity, whom we are unable to perceive. Or, you may take it on faith that there is an outside entity, whom we are unable to perceive.

Of course, everything in life must be taken of faith. You take it on faith that when you jump in the air, that you will hit the ground shortly afterwards. This cannot be proven to be the case at all - in conventional quantum mechanics, there is a chance that you could literally "tunnel" straight through a few metres of solid matter. A small chance, true, but a chance nonetheless. You also cannot prove that you are not plugged into the matrix, and that Agent Smith might pull the plug just after you leap into the air...

I made a similar argument on another board a little while back... can't remember where.

An interesting discussion. But, in the end, leaves you in exactly the same place you were before: taking everything on faith; or as an acquaintence of mine might put it: your own personal delusion.

Cheers,
muon

I think it's illogical to base something as big as your reasoning for the belief of religion on what's convenient. I can see where it would be depressing to not believe in an ultimate creator that is an easy answer for everything, but do you want to live life only believing things because you don't like the alternatives?

Everything is subjective. Not everyone needs to have an impact on the world. And I don't agree that you can't. I mean, look at Hitler. He won't likely be forgotten by the world anytime soon. He had a huge impact on the world and continues to live in history. I personally don't mind that much if my life ends without having changed the world. My only goal is to live a happy life, so that when I'm in my deathbed, I can look back and know that everything I did, I did for myself, not out of fear that some higher power would punish me.

If you believe in a higher power chances are you believe in an afterlife. Are you really sure you want to live forever? "Tedium is the worst pain" (Grendel). There's only so many times you can do something before it gets boring. But if we're talking terms of forever, you'll eventually run out of things to do. You could spend 3 trillion years doing everything in the world with 300 trillion variances each, but then what? You've still got the rest of eternity. And that, to me, seems more depressing than believing I lived a fulfilling life and played my role in the grand scheme of humanity.

Your argument is essentially that A) the belief that physical death is our true end is a belief that causes pain, depression, and unhappiness. And B) because that is the result of the belief, the belief is illogical and can not possibly be true.

While I can certainly see where you're coming from, I simply cannot agree with either of these points. The first point basically stems from the fear of death- something I personally believe to be a human creation. That is to say, I don't believe we're born with it. What we are born with is two things that we ultimately, through our capacity for intelligence and the teachings of the world we live in, quickly develop into an unnatural fear of death. These two things we are born with are the survival instict and fear of the unknown (which is also really the survival instict). Because we live in a world where survival is trivial, we turn to materialism. We create personal bonds with people, things, and most importantly, ourselves (ego). Death, the state of non-existence, is a concept. We can only imagine this concept, because it is completely unknown to us. No living creature has ever "experienced" non-existence and "lived to tell the tale" so to speak.. It is unknown to us, it threatens our survival and everything we hold as important to us in this life. Therefore, we fear it. The fear of death itself is unnatural and illogical, yet our world is consumed with it; it is the pandemic result of complex intelligence. I see it as one of the many obstacles in the way of societal evolution.

Your second point brings up a rather significant problem that is very very common. People all over the world ask the big questions and look wherever they can for answers until they find the "belief" to suit them. The problem is that the majority of people choose their beliefs based on emotion or logic-or even a mix- and don't realize WHICH motives they used. Its to be expected as we are living beings with both emotions and logic and we use each every day of our lives. The problem is they conflict one another. You yourself are using logical reasoning to determine your belief, but in failing to use logic alone to denounce the belief you are emotionally bothered by, you choose to use the emotion itself to denounce it- and afterwards claiming the emotion *as* logic. In the makeup of each of our psychologies are endless beliefs big and small that we create and collect throughout our lives. Whether we mold the majority of our beliefs from logic or from emotion will vary wildly from one person to another. For example, I assure you a large majority of atheists were moreso emotionally motivated to their conclusions than from logic. For one belief you find emotionally unsettling, even the exact one you posted, another individual will experience the opposite emotion. Some find pleasure in the idea of pain or death. But I want to stress that molding your beliefs based off either emotion or logic is NOT wrong- the error is in acting on those beliefs without knowing and understanding your real motivations behind them. As the human race has proven over and over, beliefs kill. Unless your beliefs demand killing, in which case that's just a nasty cycle of logic.. youch!

I'd just like to add that 99% of murder, rapings, or _____ are motivated by beliefs. Not just religious beliefs either. Racial, prejudice, political, economy, anything. Self-created hatred fueled only by concepts and ideas that exist nowhere but within your mind. Just something to think about..

Hah, I like your ideas, I have had alot of them myself Sefton!

Basically, the way I see it is this: if you're a conscientious atheist, there's no reason not to have 'a' religion because there is some 'reward' for your good deeds, or abstainence from bad deeds.

There's also the whole afterlife thing - which I must add, what's so bad about believing that there's something better waiting for you around the corner? Even if the religion was a lie, a dying man who lived a good life would dream of a more just and fair world that he's about to travel to on his deathbed, even though he'd go out like a lightswitch in which case he won't have any opportunty for regrets.

On the other hand, if you're already a morally bankrupt atheist, then you can continue to go on and mock others' beliefs. Please guys, it's called faith for a very VERY good reason.

Are you using the term "logic" loosely?

"...you simply cease to exist. It will not matter one whit..." Break of logic between those two statements.

"Your only hope of continuance is in your progeny...." Untrue. Or, at best, "continuance" needs to be defined.

"Wow, that is depressing." Not necessarily.

"Your actions in life are futile...." Pardon?

"Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing." 1. So don't do that. 2. Says you. This is not a support or bridge to anything, logically.

"Why believe in something that causes you pain ...." Assuming that lack of belief causes pain, but belief does not. Which assumes not only a higher power, but a benevolent one, no?

"There are only two logical options ...." Incorrect.

There may be a way to make this argument sound, but what you have offered isn't it.

Impulse:

Heh. See, that's exactly my point from before. Every belief is a matter of convenience. It is convenient for you to believe that if you jump, you _will_ hit the ground shortly thereafter. This is by no means a certainty, not a fact, nor may it have any basis in an objective reality (which we cannot observe).

Everything you take for granted is actually a choice of convenience for you. Faith is not something that is restricted to religions or some idea of an afterlife; no, faith is something that every human being falls back on every minute of every day.

You choose to believe that when you jump you will hit the ground again. Why? Because the last time you jumped, you hit the ground. And the time before that. And the time before that. Of course, the scientific method is very clear on this topic: repeated experiments in no way offer proof.

So when you talk about "a faith of convenience dictating your beliefs", you actually need to expand that statement to "a faith of convenience dictating every choice you ever make, and ever will make". Because that is precisely what you (and every other human on the planet) does.

And as to what each person chooses to delude themselves into believing to be fact... well, it's their choice.
And, logically, it can be no less unprovable than your own...

Food for thought...
Cheers,
muon.

In an ideal world, religion would be what it's supposed to be, faith. But we don't live in an ideal world. Religion is no longer just a belief, it's a magnifying glass for violence, hate, and intolerance. People have died for religion, wars have been fought because of religion, and even right now wars are going on because of religion. Religion isn't the simple peace-of-mind you seem to be describing it as. People manipulate others into fighting for religion, dying for religion. As intolerant as some atheists may be, we have never killed millions of our own people because we believe their beliefs are wrong.

Muon, are you saying I should believe in anything simply because it can't be proven?

"So, because of the accidental nature of your creation, this is all you get."

Not so. Not a logical conclusion. Your existance *could* continue in an altered form, after death. What you can logiaclly claim, is that *this* existance ends at death. But that is all. ;)

"This, to me at least, is the worst possible outcome. Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing. I am sorry but, this is illogical."

Not illogical. ;) Define nothing. The sheer expeirence of living (the highs and lows) can be reason enough. If only for your life to be an example to others. You have reason, it just might not be the reaosn *you* want, but that's tough. ;)

Impulse:

Absolutely. Differences have always spawned conflict, and religion has always been a tool used by greedy people to enforce their ideals and satisfy their whims. So, yes, religion has caused a massive amount of suffering and hatred.

However, I do not agree that religion is the only thing that causes such conflict. Indeed, I think that religion itself in that context is merely the offspring of "baser human instincts"; that is, the fear of that which is different, as well as greed (for power and dominion, as well as for material wealth).

So, to answer your point about various religions having a lot to answer for... I agree entirely. Often the religion itself perpetuates or in some way vindicates such actions. In other cases, people have used religion as an excuse. In either case I would agree that such actions are reprehensible.

But, I don't think that any of this has any bearing on the argument... On my argument at least. I am not talking about right and wrong, morals and ethics, or whatever. I am talking about a logical basis for faith. And, as I have shown, there are 3 possibilities: I am God, There is no God, There is a God who is not me.

And yes, I completely agree with your last post: either of these three are equally illogical.

Any choice that a person makes between the three are made purely for their own convenience; they cannot be proven or disproven, and there is no evidence (or possibility of evidence) for against any of the three.

As to "believing anything and it being alright"... well, yes. It is perfectly alright for you to believe whatever you like. I won't necessarily agree with you. But you have the right to believe in whatever you like...

Cheers,
muon

Atheism: A Bleak Alterative"

Now before someone craps a brick, I'm simply posting this because it seems relevant to the conversation. I haven't read through this whole thread and don't intend to because it is growing rapidly and the posts are anything but short.

This link is intended for discussion amongst the participants of the discussion, and in no way represents the opinions or views of the poster. If you have any complaints, please direct them back up Uranus. Thank you.

If anyone wants to edit that and slip in the left < on the URL tag, feel free. 0=)

Thank you for this Sefton.

I once told a friend that Atheists are either the bravest or stupidest people alive. Granted, I classify myself as one, and don't feel particularly brave or stupid.

Simply put, to be Atheist is to accept the complete worthlessness that is any and all efforts you make during your life. That no matter what you do, it will end.

But, pain is not the worst thing. I have trouble going to sleep at night when I contemplate the nothingness that I believe death is. Yet, I find it even harder to believe in a higher power who is so sick as to let his creations do this.

To me, pain because of nothingness is acceptable. Pain because I was created by a cruel and apathetic being is untolerable. If there is a God, he has failed too many people in this world for me to follow him. So, I choose to not follow them.

I live my life by the fact that anything that can happen, will happen. Life will always continue. Even if it's snuffed out for a trillion, trillion years, life would eventually restart. So while I may not be anything other then a spark, I know the atoms that are me will eventually be someone else. It may take half an eternity, but it shall happen.

That's what I believe. That my life may be worthless, but... I enjoy it. I will continue to enjoy life and all it's wonderful things.

So, this brings me to why I thanked you when I completely disagree with you. I thanked you... because until I read what you wrote I never had a chance to logically look at my beliefs. I have now done so and... I will sleep easier tonight. And tomorrow. And every day until I die, and when I die I will die with the knowledge nothing I did mattered, but that... I enjoyed whatever the hell it was.

Thanks again :)

not good table talk sefton where is your manners. jk :P

Some points I have to put out here, my own opinions, just going to type this as it comes, so might be repetitive:

- The notion of logic is purely human; I believe it is merely a development of what human beings have experienced. I highly doubt the notion of pain can lead us to conclude if there is a 'higher power,' firstly, you haven't clarified what this power is, is it another being or a natural occurrence within what we call the 'universe.'

- Having only two options, i.e. there is only a yes or no, true or false outcomes, doesn't always apply in the real world. Yes, it is true when saying one is either alive or dead; however, to say what is to occur after or before the period of 'life' is only hypothetical, unproven, and unprovable.

- Our perception of the norm is shaped by our environment; the norm for someone in the developed world will vary greatly from someone who was present a hundred years ago. And in turn, the norm will dictate our beliefs, behaviour, and thoughts.

- Science stands because it satisfies what we, as humans, observe and experience. It is _easier_ to believe because it is material, it is _logical_. As for the most part science is hypothetical, the whole elemental mixing to create the initial cell is what may have been concluded upon, but unless we can find evidence for it, then it is hard to fully believe in such a claim.

- Religion, I've spent many years discussing religion and studying it. Mind you, I'm only 19, yet it’s a topic that I enjoy contemplating. A religion can be anything that puts life into a plausible framework; the two things that are most prominent are what is there before life and what is to come after it. The reason why science fails here is because the logic that we develop through life can not be used after or before it, not because the logic does not hold, but there is no physical way to prove that is does.

- Religions that rise, work by explaining these periods of time, again you need to understand that what is _your_ logic is just that, _your_ own. I agree that if one believes that there is simply nothing before or after life, it is fairly miserable because we as living creatures experience a very strong urge to continue onwards. Believing that there is no certainty for our lives to continue on after deaths will lead us to be afraid, why we are naturally wary of the unknown is most likely a very primitive thing. I've alway wondered if it was as simple as man's inability to see in the dark (being a form of the unknown), which leads to this fear. Something basic that man would have experienced very early on and over time being engrained into the mind.

- As for the notion of good and evil, I don't think this relates to anything beyond us. Doesn't apply in nature, a creature killing another isn't seen as heinous or cruel, only to us. Again evil, is seen as the darkness, something to be afraid or wary of, yet, the concept of good is seen a light, maybe giving us a clear picture of what is around us?

I’ve chosen not to believe in any religion, I enjoy being able to see things without an outer influence apart from my self developed beliefs. I know many religious people and even though most are very open minded, they always seem to throw out the line “But it says this in …” and to be quite honest, if you’ve to rely on some book or idiom that someone else has written to come up with a reasoning for something, you’re just not really living . ;)

As for religion or politics not making good dinner discussion I'd disagree, I mean do you really care if some celebrity is pregnant again and has lost a hundred kilos, while in rehab for a drug addiction that spawned after she divorced her third husband for the second time? I thought so. :P

Wow I had no idea I would generate such interest. First off I will say that is what puzzles me is those who say, just because I believe my entire existence to be accidental does not necessarily mean my existence is finite. This seems very very convenient to me. I mean you have to say that belief in an accidental existence is one brought on by science, for without science to back you up, you would be as many have said about the past, having to create answers for question without any facts. I would offer this challenge to those claimants. Offer one piece, just one, of scientific evidence that supports the idea that any living thing’s conscious existence continues beyond its being born and dieing. You have lots of scientific evidence to support the idea of your accidental creation, how come you lack such for the claim that you have conscious existence beyond your life. I know why. Because there is none and in its absence you simply say I do not know, so there still could be life after death. It is pretty convenient to at once use science as your crutch in one argument and then blind faith in the other and turn to me and say, there could be life after the death of this accident. I picked a side and stuck to it, you should do the same. And P.S. an unconscious existence after life is no different than none at all.

Secondly, I am not sure how this did not come across loud and clear. Many have posted why do you wish to believe, or conjure up, or invent your higher power. I do nothing of the sort, and I challenge you to find text of mine to support that claim. What I wish to do is to choose the logical answer to a question in which there are two logical choices. The most humorous part about those posters to me is, all I did was say here is the negative answer, it could be true, but to believe it to be true is illogical. And since it is illogical to believe to be true, logic dictates we choose the other answer. We have in no way defined “a higher power”, and would mention at this point briefly, that you will not find me saying that this “higher power” is conscious nor active nor beneficial, it is simply greater than I.

I have to pull this one out, simply because it was first, not because it was alone, nor because it was less than others.

"It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain." Is that how you want to live your life, shying away from reality because you can't cope? Do you believe a large part of the world are dying unnecessarily from war, disease and famine? Do you avoid that truth because it is painful? How is your god helping them?

At what point did I shy away from reality? I did not say my accidental existence could not be true, I said to believe that is illogical. Where did I break with reality? At what point have I given my “higher power” anything other than my creation. Do you expect gravity to help with war, disease, or famine? Then do not assume my “higher power” is supposed to help either. I simply stated it is the logical choice to believe my creation is non-accidental. It is your own misconceptions and presumptions that lead you to attribute things to my “higher power” while I did nothing of the sort.

Just have to put a shout out to muon’s excellent first post. As you can see however, he reaches no conclusion, which, is always what happens when you ask someone to use facts to answer a question in which there are none. That is of course true, but I do not see the usefulness of saying there are three possible choices and I have no idea which one it is and then say this doubt I have is a good thing and makes me happy. My contention is I do not know which is true, but why would I logically choose to believe in something that offers me nothing but doubt and confusion, when as he elegantly put it, I really have to go on faith anyway. That is sort of the point. Since there is no answer, why believe in an answer in which you derive no comfort, no hope of life after death. This does not seem logical to me.

Again and again people use their own assumptions to extend my statements. At no point have I ever stated anything more to my “higher power” than it ability to create conscious life. This does not answer everything, nor was arriving their easy. It simply answers one question and one question alone, was I created by a “higher power”. Again and again people take my belief in my creation by a “higher power” and add things like who wants to live forever. I did not say your existence after death was forever. I said, it is illogical to believe that your creation is an accident. And this one kills me. “And B) because that is the result of the belief, the belief is illogical and can not possibly be true.” Please, please show me where I said accidental existence cannot be true. I can quote you several lines where I said the direct opposite. Once you open your argument with a direct fallacy it makes the rest of it lack relevance.

“"...you simply cease to exist. It will not matter one whit..." Break of logic between those two statements. Why? Watch this, all people with brown hair and blonde highlights are less intelligent than me. Anyone can say anything thing they want if they simply state it without fact or support. Or how about this, 2+2=4 is untrue. Again easy to say, hard to show as a true statement. If you are going to quote out of context in order to make you point, this is not a good way to make a point. The proper quote which contains the phrase and the point is, “This, to me at least, is the worst possible outcome. Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing.” If you do not believe that to be the worse possible thing, I will not try to make you believe it, but don’t pull it out and say says you, when I clearly state in the entire phrase, says me. "Why believe in something that causes you pain ...." Assuming that lack of belief causes pain, but belief does not. Which assumes not only a higher power, but a benevolent one, no? Where did I say lack of belief causes pain, I said your belief, not lack of one, in an accidental creation causes pain, whereas my belief in my non-accidental creation does not. How you bridge from belief does not cause pain to a benevolent higher power is beyond me. And lastly, “"There are only two logical options ...." Incorrect.” OK, give me the third or the tenth option. To state I am wrong is easy to offer suggestive arguments as to that is not.

I make this last statement again, because it needs to be said again. My “higher power” so far cares nothing for you, or its creations anymore than gravity does. When a baby is tossed out a window by its mother and falls to its death do you say DARN you gravity! No, you do not, so do not expect or assume my “higher power” has done anything more significant than create you, and also do not assume it ever will or should for that matter. I certainly have laid no claims on the morality of my “higher power” why do people consistently try to do it for me?

Wow Xiaz I really like you post, I was typing my response while you were submitting yours and missed it, so I wanted to post briefly I enjoyed reading it. You definately understood the underlying spirit here, and I noticed it.

Also, quickly, if anyone want the next step of a Logical Religion, then I would be happy to post it. If most thought the intial post was nothing but an annoying waste of time, well I will keep it to myself. Believe it or not, since there are no right answers, I really do not care if you believe like I do and I certainly will not start a Jihad to make sure that you do :)

Sefton, I don't mind the posts at all -- I am privileged that you are sharing your inner thoughts and opinions with the community, and your sentiment sounds comforting and a great source of strength and happiness for you!

I do, however, take issue with you calling these steps a "Logical Religion". Just go to Wikipedia, then read Bast's post, and it is very evident that your reasoning does not meet the rigorous rules needed to be called logic. I.e., if you were making a geometric proof in the same fashion you are speaking here, it would be considered entirely unacceptable by the logic/math community.

I am also not understanding why you would _want_ to using the word "logical" in your title. Using that word gives the tone an incendiary edge for folks who really value logic as a tool (especially when coupling the word with "religion", a clearly subjective subject). Stating what can only be an opinion (a very nice sentiment, don't get me wrong!) and calling it "logical" is, well, illogical. *smile*

Alternate title ideas:

My Personal Religion
My Personal Logic [softens the use of "logic" in this context]
My Religious Clarity

etc. etc.

FYI, was born and raised Catholic, Catholic school for 8 years, devout parents. I don't think I ever heard the word "logic' used once in all of my upbringing. *smile*

I didn't read everybody's post here, but I'd have to say I agree most with Wasp.

"I believe that death is the same as not being born.... can you remember not being alive? Exactly."

Wow, that's almost exactly word-for-word what I've been telling my friends for the past couple of years.

I'm not a full-on atheist, I consider myself more of an agnostic. Which means, rather than saying "There is no god" I believe its impossible for anybody to prove that such a god does or does not exist. I'm more of a scientific guy and think everything happens naturally. And yeah, when you die you die, you're dead, you've lived your life and now you're done. Have you lived your life for nothing? Was your life meaningless or futile? Only if you made it that way...

Just to clarify, I don't have anything against your opinions, Sefton, just stating my own opinions here :-)

To clarify my geometry example, this would be a math proof using similar "personal" methods as I see it:

Proof that parallel lines DO intersect:

1. Take two lines that are parallel in two dimensions.
2. Lines that do not intersect make people sad.
3. No one wants to be sad.
4. If no one wants to be sad, then the thing making people sad must not be true.
5. Therefore, it is not true that parallel lines do not interest.
6. Therefore, parallel lines DO intersect.

This is a mixture of subjectivity (the content) and logic (the format), thereby making it not logic at all. Logic can only be summoned and utilized if every step along the way (content AND format) is 100% defined and objective. My "proof" above lacks definition, and definitely lacks objectivity. It is not a "logical" proof. I could call it "My Personal Opinion on Parallel Lines", I suppose... I could even call it a "proof" (no law against it). But it isn't based on logic.

Well, when you think about it Sefton, when you describe this 'negative path,' you state it makes you depressed, mainly because of the prospect that your life will lead to nothing.

What I don't understand is, aren't you overlooking the possibility of accepting this path? When I read your statement it feels as if you're saying, this option is painful, I don't enjoy pain, so to believe this path is to believe in pain, which is illogical, which makes the other path acceptable.

I'm not sure if my understanding is correct but, let me give you an example, a doctor tells a man is that his wife is going to die, to believe in this knowledge will naturally make him very sad, the notion that he is going to lose the one he loves and care about isn't appealing on any level. However, on the other hand, he has the option not to believe the information given to him, because (from you seem to be getting at) it is illogical to believe in something that brings one pain. Of course, in this example, the doctor represent a source which is certain of the outcomes.

So yes, the negative path will bring a normal individual some form of pain, by pain I mean anything that is unpleasing to us. However, one can accept this pain because it might be beyond control, notice I say 'beyond control', not 'beyond _our_ control.'

Or maybe, you're simply talking about our ability to choose, then you are correct as you stand, because even if you do only have two possible outcomes, you'd choose the one that is the most pleasing to you. Because that is, funnily enough, the logical decision. :)

Oh please don't stop Sef! :D

I've had (I'm sure I've posted some of it here before) a long standing discussion about souls since I started frequenting discussion boards.

This isn't a Religion specific discussion, but could be tailored to suit such. :)

I get an immense pleasure from debating thses subjects. It's not the resolution I seek, as I don't think I'll ever be able to fully answer these questions, but exposure to different views and ideas.

I'm Agnostic. But I'm not a fence sitter. The only stance I can take it that I fully *don't know*, and as such, for me to claim something as certainty is foolish or arrogant. ;)

But, I don't, and can't, know what others do. What is foolish and arrogant to me, might not be so for them.

"I picked a side and stuck to it, you should do the same."

No. That I cannot, and will not do. :)

I can't answer what happens after death, just as much as you can't. We can suppose that everything stops. Or somehow, some part of us remains.

"how come you lack such for the claim that you have conscious existence beyond your life. I know why. Because there is none and in its absence you simply say I do not know, so there still could be life after death. It is pretty convenient to at once use science as your crutch in one argument and then blind faith in the other and turn to me and say, there could be life after the death of this accident."

Saying "I don't know" isn't blind fiath Sef. ;) Saying "We exists after death" or "there is nothing after death" is.

Let's debate what happens after death. How can a part of us remain 'active' after death?

If there is nothing of us that can, then doesn't that imply there is only nothingness after death, regardless of faith?

;)

""I believe that death is the same as not being born.... can you remember not being alive? Exactly."

Wow, that's almost exactly word-for-word what I've been telling my friends for the past couple of years."

I don't remember at all, the first couple (or more) years of my life. Does that mean they don't exist?

Is existance purely based on memory? Do the events of my past that I no longer remember no longer exist, or have no longer happened?

What if I become an amnisiac, and forget everything. Do I cease to exist?

I never said anything like that, GL. I don't know where you're getting those ideas from. What I meant was before you were born, you felt nothing and were nothing, and after you die, you will again feel nothing and be nothing.

If I look back at my life, I felt nothing in (for example) the first year of it. I can't remember a single feeling from it. Isn't that death?

Wasn't I dead then?

As for being nothing before I was born, that I can assure you is not the case.

My mother had tremendous difficulties with my pregnancy. Before I was even born I had a noticable effect on the world. It's just *I* didn't notice it.

That's assuming you were nothing before your birth, I think GL's point is, you state you were and felt nothing, is it not possible you merely have forgotten that period of time? Unless you can rememeber not existing? Man, that hurts my brain, lol :D

I am new here but I thought this was an interesting post.

Here are a few of my thoughts.
First of all, as muon has pointed out, there are 3 possibilities.

1. You are God
2. There is no God
3. There is a God that is not you.

Rene Descarte, in his meditations suggested that we are "thinking things", in fact he coined the phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum", "I Think Therefore I Am". As a "thinking thing" he said that each of us have a perception or conception of "perfection" as an absolute. Since we are not perfect (read his meditations to see how logically he proves this point), we therefore can deduce that we did not create the idea of "perfection", because imperfection cannot be the cause of perfection that is an illogical paradox.

On, another line of thought, what is faith? My definition of faith would be a hope or assurance of things not seen. For some people around the world they have had subjective personal assurances of their beliefs which have created and/or added to their measure of faith. Others who have not had such experiences often choose not to accept faith or these personal subjective experiences as being authentic.

I think we can (hopefully) all agree that there is an ultimate truth out there in the cosmos, that ultimate truth brings us back to the possibilities brought up by muon and re-iterated at the beginning of my response.

As a final comment, I find it very narrow minded to say that religion is a crutch used by weak minded people to give their lives meaning. The same can be said for non-belief, they provide the same subjective justification for our personal beliefs, and actions.

Well said, Sporadic. =)

okay, I think, therefore, I am... How do I know you guys think? How do I know that you all aren't just a small part of my rampant imagination? How do you know that I'm not?

I have to admit, I do not understand why there is a reason to debate my opinion via my choice of the word logical. Simply because your defintion of logical and the dictionary's defintion of logic is different, does not mean I used the work improperly. Assuming that we as a society must agree to define our words somewhere, and that the American Heritage Dictionary is as good a place as any, here is THEIR definition of the word, logic (of which logical is derrived).

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source log·ic (l&#335;j'&#301;k) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
d. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
e. Computer circuitry.
f. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

[Middle English, from Old French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikç (tekhnç), (art) of reasoning, logic, feminine of logikos, of reasoning, from logos, reason; see leg- in Indo-European roots.]

So now using that litmus test, tell me how my use of the term Logical is improper. While I enjoy the wiki, it is created by people I do not know. I know the American Heritage Dictionary, and when I seek definition, I seek a dictionary not a wiki.

The reason I want to use logical, is because it best defines in my opinion how I arrived at my conclusion. Instead of relying on some written word from 2,000 year ago, or someone telling me this is how it is and I believing, I used another method to arrive there. Granted, it might not meet the standard of logical deductive reasoining as put forth by the great thinker Aristotle and their ilk, I did not title it, The use of deductive logical reason to prove existence of a higher power. I simply said it is Logical Religion, and looking at the defintion of the word you take umbrance with, I do not see how it is improper.

English is a colloquial language. You can't define what is being said by looking in any dictionary, though for many things, it may help a little.

OK, then I just also proved that parallel lines DO intersect. So, as long as you are cool with that, I am cool with your use of logic and trying to apply it to religion and the afterlife.

In short, yes, you can define a word to mean anything you want it to mean. But don't then use that definition and expect _others_ to listen to what you are saying and to consider it to be consistent.

The reason people try to agree on definitions (and then use those defined words accordingly) is so that things cannot be changed out from under them. If I say I will give you five "dollars" for something, and then later tell you that my definition of "dollar" is "a piece of pocket lint", will you be OK with being paid with five pieces of fluff?

Definitions become important when you are trying to have honest discourse. In past threads, you have accused me of having undue influence on others, and even operating from a hidden agenda... Well, what exactly would you call what you are doing, using the word "Logical" in the context of something personal, subjective, and sometimes-incendiary: religion?

If I put forth my views on religion and called them "The Unequivocal Truth About God, the Universe, and Everything", would you not take issue with my use of the word truth in such a subject?

Xiaz, we are certainly of a like mind I think even if it takes us different places. Let me show you just a little bit further down my line of reasoning that I would normally at this point, because your example of a doctor is so SPOT on to what I want to say, but in the completely opposite direction.

So you go to the Doctor and he says your wife will die, since we are all going to die, I assume you wanted to suggest that her life will end prematurely based upon some medical condition. So I will presume that to be the case. So now you know the doctor has said she will die in say 6 months. What do you do? You can certainly believe him, make your plans, and either live the rest of your 6 months waiting for the Doctor supplied end in misery or perhaps you say wow I have to cram 20 years into 6 months lets do it! Either way, you believed him. But what he says in not necessarily true. It is simply his opinion. You might find a second or third opinion that differs, but you would not seek that opinion if you believed his. You might find that for some unexplained reason, you live 12 months, or 12 years, or that the medical condition without reason suddenly up and disappeared. You know it happens all the time. It is often attributed to some faith healer, some magic spring water, some prayer, something, but you know it happens. What *I* attribute it to is belief. That is all you need. You have the magic in you to do wonderful things simply by believing them to be possible. You might use different methods or vehicles to channel that belief, but it is your belief it self that makes it true. Does belief gaurentee a miracle, no, if you want a gaurentee go buy an extended warranty on your toaster oven. But, belief does make it more likely, at least in my opinion.

So, back to the beginning, I either a) believe the doctor and now I am forced to constrain the rest of my life by that belief (I am sorry, but even if it IS true, what is the benefit of believing it is) when the answer is not absolute. OR I b) believe that she is not going to die in 6 months and she could live many more years. In the end which is a better belief to make your life happy. I am not talking about disbelieving reality, I am not talking about saying 2+2=5, because that doctor cannot I repeat cannot be certain she will die in 6 months why should I bother to believe him, when the belief that she will live many more years is much more pleasant. It seems illogical to me to choose the most painful of two options when neither option is certain. Which circles us nicely back to my belief that it is illogical to choose the nothingness of your life and death, over the belief of something, shoot anything, when neither answer is certain.

Truth is absolute.....
Personal Beliefs are subjective...

Personal Beliefs regarding Truth are absolutely subjective?

=)

Well, Sefton, you've sort of lost me with lines like:

"I am sorry, but even if it IS true, what is the benefit of believing it is"

What is the point? I don't know, living in reality? Facing problems truthfully and accurately? Learning from mistakes?

For all of those things (and many, many more), facing the truth is _exactly_ what has to be done. If one of your pillars of "logic" is that you don't need to believe something even if it is true...then...what is the point of anything you are saying? You might as well be saying blablhayaddaybblahsyaddadadad -- it would be very bit as meaningful.

So I gather you do not believe my use of Logical in the sense of a mode of reasoning, which is a defintion of the word by the way, does not apply? Do you EVER once see me say I proved anything? Do you once ever see me say I am right you are wrong? No, this is the nature of the science deductive reasoning or logic. You would only use that science if you wanted to PROVE something true or false or SHOW someone to be right or wrong. Just like your parallel lines example. You are trying to prove something, I am not. I am suggesting it is logical religion because I used a mode of reasoning to arrive where I am versus some other method. And I still defend the use of the word as proper in that context and I defy you to PROVE me wrong.

Secondly I did not define the word Logic, I used an accepted source for that. You are the one defining it without a source.

Lastly Sut, no, I would not attack your use of a particular word in the title of your post, I would attack your reasoning, your proof and leave the semantics to others.

Hatch, just a quick note, you either agree to speak English and agree to get your defintion for the same or similar source, or you are not speaking English, BY defintion.

Ack, I got cut off...

In other words, don't put the cart before the horse -- the doctor CANNOT know if it is true, so there is no point in saying "even if it is true, why believe it"... No one knows the future. You aren't talking truth or logic in that case, you are talking hope and speculation.

In the case of getting a bad medical opinion, I, personally, would ride the line between reality and hope. I wouldn't give up, because no absolute truth has been divulged (only likely opinion). So, I would help fight the illness, but would try to use a realistic viewpoint to control my expectations and get affairs in order.

An example of hope HAVING to change to reality to avoid disaster would be in dealing with someone truly delusional. Let's say someone is standing atop a building, and I tell them that if they jump, they will die. They _could_ say that is just my opinion. They would even be right, because there is some, infinitesimally small chance they would survive. We live in a quantum universe, after all.

But they would be severely deluded not to trust my opinion in that case, and they would die if they jumped. Every time.

Because Sut, you do not KNOW it is to be true until after the fact. Up until that point, it still has not happened, and thus it might NOT be true. To disbelieve the past, things that have already occured is of course foolish, to disbelieve someone's prediction of the future because they are not God and cannot be certain does not make you foolish or even wrong. And since you CANNOT know the answer WHAT is the point of believing the worst of two choices?

I don't believe in sharp corners anymore after reading Sefton's post, think that'll stop me bumping my head?

That's cool, Sefton, but in the threads where I was accused (by you) of having a hidden agenda, of influencing others, etc. did I EVER say I was trying to influence others or that I did, in fact, have an agenda? No, I did not. Yet you took me to task. Why?

"Lastly Sut, no, I would not attack your use of a particular word in the title of your post, I would attack your reasoning, your proof and leave the semantics to others. "

You just said you weren't proving anything...so...there is nothing to "attack"? And if I did the same, you could not "attack" me? I'm not attacking you, dude, I'm just questioning your use of logic, and pointing out that some folks might give the thread greater merit than just a simple opinion because of your word choice. In every debate on CB you and I have had, you invariably question my word choice, tone, influence. I do the same to you, and there's an issue?

I value your opinion, enjoyed reading it, and feel you are 100% entitled to your views, beliefs, faiths, and definitions. In fact, if you were to change the word "you" in your OP all to the word "I", it would be absolutely perfect to me under ANY title. But you flit in and out of "you" and "I", as if this applies to me too. It doesn't. Heck, if you just changed the article "A" to the possessive pronoun "My" in the title, I would probably not have posted a thing!

I get taken to task for my word choices and tone all the time, and have done for my whole life. So, the least I can do is give as good as I get. *smile*

OK, fair enough I ammend my last statement slightly. Instead of "Lastly Sut, no, I would not attack your use of a particular word in the title of your post, I would attack your reasoning, your proof and leave the semantics to others."

I ammend to, "Lastly Sut, no, I would not question your use of a particular word in the title of your post, I would question your reasoning, your proof and leave the semantics to others."

Is this better?

Also, as we have said to each other many times in many ways, the reason for those accusations is because you do not realize how much power your words have, how much influence they have on how people perceive Carnage Blender.

IF you are concerned that my post will is some way injure or harm someone, or make an undo or even unintended change in the nature of their beliefs which by doing so will cause them harm, then by all means stand up and say so and by all means call me on it. Its why I call you on your opinions on Carnage Blender. Because I believe intentionally or otherwise belief in your words would cause harm to the game, in the context of those other GAME RELEVANT only posts, and I like the game and do not want it harmed. Still doesn't make me right or even correct on the motivation behind your posts, but the reason for it is to protect a game I enjoy from changes I think would damage it, what is your reasoning here?

And lastly I WANT it to apply to you. I cannot make it apply to you, but it is my desire to do so, thus I use the words you. If you do not wish for it to apply to you, then don't. There is no force here, I am simply putting forth it is illogical to believe the worst of two UNKNOWABLE choices. As you see, there is no recourse for me when someone says, well I choose the negative and it causes me no pain. I will not try to make it cause someone pain. But I will in the same breath say IF you believe the negative AND it causes you pain, it is illogical to do so.

P.S. This is illogical:

"They would even be right, because there is some, infinitesimally small chance they would survive. We live in a quantum universe, after all.

But they would be severely deluded not to trust my opinion in that case, and they would die if they jumped. Every time. "

If we live in a quantum universe AND there is a chance that it could not occur it is illogical to use the phrase, every time.

I'm with sutekh 100% on this one.
How can you possibly say that to not believe in something is illogical just because it brings about a more negative reaction to some?
Religion is about faith, logic and faith cannot be further apart from one another. Faith is the belief and hope that there will be a positive result from any situation whereas logic is based on the balance of probabilities, if one result has even slightly more than a 50% chance of happening then that is the logical outcome.
The meaning of existance and where we came from is difficult as there is no proof that anyone in our time can confidantly give as unobjectionable so we have to use our faith and belief of what we think is right which can bring about the 'mix-up' with logic as it is what we believe to be more likely but this does not make it logic due to it not actually being more likely but us believing it is.

I apologise for a lack of punctuation in the last paragraph, I found it painful to read just now >.<

LOL, and this is why Sut and I have trouble. People read Sut and then attribute things to me which I did not say. I have never and WILL never say, "How can you possibly say that to not believe in something is illogical just because it brings about a more negative reaction to some?" I said, there are two logical answers to the question were you created by a higher power, yes and no. Then I said if you BELIEVE No, and it causes you pain, that is illogical BECAUSE you cannot know if your belief is true, and it is illogical to choose pain when there is another option.

And Again Zoglog, grab a dictionary, look up the word logic, read it saying "a mode of reasoning", and realize I choose the word logic in THAT defintion, and in THAT defintion, I say I arrive at my conclusion using a MODE of reasoning versus some other method and in that context it is logical.

Sefton, you are missing my point. I am pointing out why very few things are True, but that many things can be true.

It is considered an acceptable scientific fact that if I throw a baseball at a wall, it has a chance of passing through. Quantum tunnelling. Only problem is, as things get bigger (non-quantum), the odds get smaller. A lot smaller. As in, the odds are so small so as to say that there is not enough time in the Universe to attempt the operation enough to have it happen even one time.

In that sense, I can factually say there is a "chance" of something happening, but for any specific scenario, I can say that it is not going to happen.

Doesn't matter anyway, because I define the word "illogical" as "having purple skin". My skin is not purple. Therefore, I am not illogical. Well, then again, I guess that depends on your definition of purple. *sigh*. Doesn't matter, I am not being illogical.

As for your other quote:

"IF you are concerned that my post will is some way injure or harm someone, or make an undo or even unintended change in the nature of their beliefs which by doing so will cause them harm, then by all means stand up and say so and by all means call me on it. Its why I call you on your opinions on Carnage Blender. Because I believe intentionally or otherwise belief in your words would cause harm to the game, in the context of those other GAME RELEVANT only posts, and I like the game and do not want it harmed. Still doesn't make me right or even correct on the motivation behind your posts, but the reason for it is to protect a game I enjoy from changes I think would damage it, what is your reasoning here? "

Damage the game...man, dude, you really have some Center of the Universe issues, don't you? Plus, you apply them to _me_! (Editor's Note: neither I nor Sefton is the center of the universe, this universe or any other) Either that, or maybe you think _very_ little of Jonathan. I can't change the game. I can't damage the game. I can talk. That's it. So let's tone down the "power" thing, OK? I have never damaged the game, I have never changed the game directly. I have merely expressed my opinion, and sometimes things happen in relation to those opinion. It's called "discourse". It's how things happen.

What is my reasoning, then, in picking at your OP? A lot of people read forums. A lot of impressionable people. Impressionable people who are in school, learning about science, logic, math, religion, etc. And these impressionable people respect you, Sefton. A LOT. You have power too (at least by the definition of "power" you apply to me). So, when I think of an impressionable person, reading the viewpoints of someone they respect, and I see "A" instead of "My", "Logic" instead of "opinion", and "you" instead of "I", I worry about how it will be read. I want to be careful in the same way I am careful when talking to my 13-year-old nephew. He is becoming quite the sophist (wonder where he gets that from? *smile*), and is questioning everything. I could EASILY turn him into me. Flat out. He respects me and loves me and is very impressionable. You should see how careful I am around him. I don't use the same tone I use when espousing my opinion on tanks vs. mages, for example, because if used such vehemence when he asks me my opinion on God, or sports, or people, or love, he would take what I say as _gospel_.

So why do I go ahead and use such tone here on CB game-related issues? Simple:

-- CB is a game.
-- Jonathan is not a child.
-- Debating tank vs mage isn't going to affect anyone's views on life or philosophy.
-- CB is a game.
-- Jonathan is not a child.

Your method of thought is flawed Sefton, and no matter how many fingers you have for leaky dikes I don't see it holding water any time soon. You jump from asumption to asumption depending on fear to carry the reader with you. A favorite band of mine has a song containing the line "does it make you suffer because you have to die?" in it. You simply assume that the reader fears life coming to an end, and that is disrepectful to the many cultures and peoples who have a healthy perspective on things. It's unhealthy to be so afraid of death you can't accept the truth of things. I feel sorry for the dillusional, and fearfilled people who can't see the beauty in lifes end, or any other part of the wonderful journey we have here. Argument techniques aside people, using fear of death to push authoritarian ideals about a creator is a half step from using it to push nationalist ideals...

So... Is there any way a portion of us can remain active after the body dies?

I didn't read something from Sut into what I read from your post but you are obviously reading more into my post than is needed.
I'm definitely not a follower in terms of viewpoints, if I didn't agree with Sut from my own already formed opinion then I wouldn't have said it. I have honestly had several disagreements with Sut's points in the past and to make it out as if he forms my opinions is proposterous.
I formed my original sentence from " So even if this is the truth, it is illogical to believe in it, because the only thing that can stem from it is painful."
At the end of the day there are many realists among us, myself being one who don't look at the idea as being a painful one but as a more sensible one to us. Many people believe that the remains of the body are a good thing as they provide nutrients for plants and animals therefore a metaphorical 'new beginning'.
Now I'm just going to confuse everybody but in my opinion: If logic is a mode of reasoning and you want to therefore reason with somebody but in a rather unreasonable way then surely that can be seen as illogical?

The trully humorous thing is Sut you are missing the point. Because you are not talking about the point itself. You are talking about the semantical definition of the words of my point. Which is NOT my point, I am not trying to define Logical or You or Opinion. That has already been done by people much smarter than I, and I accept their defintions whether you do or not.

OK I was teasing you about Quantum Mechanics. You know they are still just therories right? I was teasing you and you called me on it, so yah whatever point you were making there I conceed it.

Did Monty damage the Game? Did DAWG? Are you suggesting because Jon is not a child they did not? Not sure of ANY of the relevance here, but, yah your opinion is capable of damaging this game, it may never happen, but it is capable. You can grandize it all you wish, draw it out to absurd center of the universe conclusion, but it doesn't make it less true.

Well you did a great job of defending one very particular definition of the word Logic, and I hope the impressionable minds out there appreciate it. It has absolutely nothing to do with my original point, but it is well defended. Why does it have nothing to do with my original point, because in another specific defintion of the word logic, my use is entirely proper. If you do not like it, take it up with the American Heritage Dictionary, not me, for I do not even pretend to be the one making up the defintions, just using the ones already provided for me.

And Ta-Da. What was my original point, that it is illogical to choose an accidental creation if that belief cause you pain.

Where are we now, getting out dictionaries and trying to pin point the accurate use of a particular word or two, and defending our right to want to pin point those defintions for the protection of impressionable minds everywhere.

I will make this last statement and take my Logical Religion elsewhere.

You are presented with two doors, door A and door B. Now there is no right door to pick, you can say either door is the right one, and no one can say you are wrong. But when you touch the door knob of door B, you get a severe electrical shock, and touching the door knob for door A offers nothing more than the cool sensation of brass metal. Which door would you logically choose? And that is logic in the sense of using a mode of reasoning (versus say flipping a coin, or asking someone else, or reading about which door is right before hande and blindly following them without thought) to determine your course of action. Now you have some condition, you happened to be wearing extremely thick rubber soled shoes, and I was not, so you do not get shocked when you touch door b, and if you are not shocked I will not suggest it is illogical to select door b, but otherwise I will.

Refute that logic.

Sefton, why are you bringing up Monty and DAWG in a discussion about me? I sincerely hope that isn't some sort of weak strawman, comparing me to them, because if so, I would probably be the most angry I have ever been on CB, and I don't want that. I said in my post, over and over, that _I_ have no power, that _I_ do no damage, that _I_ am careful with my nephew. Have the posts gotten so long that you have stopped reading? I was clearly talking about myself and my point of view, and you mention Monty and DAWG? What do they have to do with _anything_?

Beyond that, you did not address a single item from my most recent post.

On to your logic:
++++++++++
You are presented with two doors, door A and door B. Now there is no right door to pick, you can say either door is the right one, and no one can say you are wrong. But when you touch the door knob of door B, you get a severe electrical shock, and touching the door knob for door A offers nothing more than the cool sensation of brass metal. Which door would you logically choose? And that is logic in the sense of using a mode of reasoning (versus say flipping a coin, or asking someone else, or reading about which door is right before hande and blindly following them without thought) to determine your course of action. Now you have some condition, you happened to be wearing extremely thick rubber soled shoes, and I was not, so you do not get shocked when you touch door b, and if you are not shocked I will not suggest it is illogical to select door b, but otherwise I will.
++++++++++

There is nothing here to refute. You haven't made a point, there is no focus to your writing, and your thoughts are all over the board.

I will say this: from the outset, you are missing the "C. Something else entirely." option: I do nothing. I walk away from the doors and go have a piece of peach pie. Or, I walk away and go whistle Dixie. Or, I walk away and go find some other doors. What is compelling me to open a door? If nothing, I might very well choose option C.

If your response is that I MUST open a door, then OK... If I am compelled to open the door, I would choose the one that shocks, because I am then meant to see what is behind at least one of the doors, and I would assume it might be something more valuable behind the door that "hurts". In fact, wearing rubber-soled shoes would be an investigative detriment, because then I would not get the information that one door was charged (I would think the doors the same and would therefore have no reason to choose one or the other).

You see, your example is treating the subject like an animal -- unable to reason beyond that first stimulus. I am NOT just an animal. I am an intelligent animal. I can see several steps ahead, I see the big picture, I am "self-aware". I do things all the time that hurt. I do them because I know I have to do them to reach what is beyond. That's why there is no logic to refute in your door example -- you aren't _saying_ anything.

Here's my (I think similar) example:

Q. I am at a table, and I am hungry (we will call that a compelling reason to avoid option C, leaving the table). In front of me is a plate of maggots, which I find abhorrent. On another plate is steak, which I love. Which will I eat?

A. The steak.

So what?

All I did is write a strangely unnecessary "proof" that could have been summed up in one line: I prefer steak over maggots when I do, in fact, have to eat.

Is that all your OP is? You saying: "This is what I believe, and here's why"? OK, great. Thanks for sharing! If that is what it is, why is there even one additional post by QBSefton on this thread? What is there to defend or comment further upon?

Obviously the un-shocking door. Nothing wrong there Sef.

But that example is not analogous to your OP. ;)

Please, before you stop posting in this thread, let's discuss afterlife. :)

Well I was going ride off but I had not read Novice's post. So, I have to respond, it is a compulsion of mine. You do realize Novice you need to actually read what I wrote in order to actually refure it? From your post it is clear you are reading someone elses. Name one assumption I made other than, I assume it to be illogical to choose one path versus another path, when there is no right path (ok second assumption nobody knows the right path) and the path you choose causes you pain.

I have absolutely no fear of dieing, for I believe my existence will continue. If you have a fear of dieing because you do not believe your existence will continue, this is illogical, for you cannot confirm your nonexistence until you have already reached it. So when you went from, I find the prospect of a noncontinued existence painful, to I fear death it is YOU not I that are making assumptions all over the place. And you that needs fingers for the dyke. Then of course using your false assumption that I fear death you go on and on about respectful this and I push that. The reason I say it like this is, your assumption is false, so that which you say to defend your assumption is not relevant.

I will also add, that the next step of a Logical Religion is to walk down the I was created by a higher power path, which leads to the complete opposite of what you are trying to accuse me of, and that is, not to fear death, to live this life with recourse beyond itself, and that your life does have purpose and meaning above and beyond its occurrance. But that you will have to read in the book I guess. (its a joke I am not writting a book about it)

So that we are clear, I have no fear of death, and I hope that however you arrive at the same comfort, be it my path or an established path, or a path of your own making, that you also have no fear of death, for it is quite comforting.

But Zoglog that line is preceeded by a ton of qualifications! The first being there is no way to actually know it is true, the second being, when you find out, it wont do you any good. By itself sure it does not stand up, but bring the entire phrase with you.

"Your only hope of continuance is in your progeny, and that is only genetic continuance. Without progeny at the time of your death, you are without question a true dead end, genetically and spiritually, nothing. Wow, that is depressing. Your actions in life are futile, your only true purpose, procreation, and that is simply continuing your species evolution. This, to me at least, is the worst possible outcome. Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing. I am sorry but, this is illogical. It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain. I find depression painful. So even if this is the truth, it is illogical to believe in it, because the only thing that can stem from it is painful. Why believe in something that causes you pain, especially when you can never really know for certain the actual truth."

There is the same line in context. Out of context sure it doesn't do much if anything, but in context it shows the logical progression of You do not know, since you do not know, why believe in something that causes you pain, because even if it ends up being true, by the time you find that it is true, it wont matter.

"I have absolutely no fear of dieing, for I believe my existence will continue. If you have a fear of dieing because you do not believe your existence will continue, this is illogical, for you cannot confirm your nonexistence until you have already reached it.

Hypocracy Sef. ;)

You *believe* your existance will continue after death. And it's logical.

Nov *believes* his existance won't continue after death. And it's illogical.

It's the same belief, based on the same assumptions of somethign that cannot be confirmed until your have reached it.

;)

It's the assumption that I can't see meaning in my life without being the play thing of same larger being I'm speaking to. The idea that I have some need to leave my stain upon the world, the ignorance to assume the a state of decline is anything but normal.

Okay, I'm now further confused. Are you using "logic" in place of "reasonable"? (Note: I started with "Are you using 'logic' loosely?" last time.)

Because even by your own presentation of definitions, Logic is a matter of Reason. Where Reason starts with a supposition and is followed by a series of inarguable (or agreed upon) statements 'til a conclusion is reached. Or a series of inarguable (or agreed upon) statements stacks one upon the other making a conclusion obvious, at which point you can see if your supposition is supported by the whole pile.

A statement or conclusion can be "reasonable", even generally held, without really applying Reason at all. It can be reasonable without the application of Logic. Somewhere in here you have said it's not a proof, but it reads like one. Was that accidental? It seems that you were arriving at the Truth (ERGO:), I was created by a Higher Power, by way of a series of logical (Logical?) answers to questions. But they aren't Logical answers, they are only reasonable ones (at best). Thus, I conclude, you have maybe made a reasonable case for believing what you do but haven't done anything for Logic or Religion, nevermind marrying the two.

(Here I would happily go off on to "why would you want to?" but that doesn't matter to the discussion you started, so I thought I'd stick to just what you said.)

Even though, at this point, I'm going to have to conclude that I've missed something pertinent because you aren't retarded, for the purposes of moving along, I'll just ... move along.

"If you are going to quote out of context in order to make you point, this is not a good way to make a point." I really was only doing it as a matter of shorthand, since by pulling each bit out (I thought) the inherent problems would be clear. (Factor in laziness, if you wish, since my HTML skills really aren't up to this) I shall endeavor to go back about it the long way.

[Just in case this isn't a given, Stipulate: to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law]

OK, lets start at the beginning, it is as good of a place to start as any.
Willing to stipulate.

You have two logical answers to the question, were you created by a higher power? You either say yes or no.
Willing to stipulate.

Let us walk down the negative path, for it is this path the leads you logically to the other.
For the current purposes, willing to stipulate.

No, you are a totally random creation brought about by millions of years of elemental mixing that accidentally resulted in the first cell, which in turn eventually evolved into the form you currently maintain.
Close enough, therefore willing to stipulate.

So, because of the accidental nature of your creation, this is all you get.
Willing to stipulate the "so". Grudgingly stipulate to the "is all" which carries some degree of negative inference.

Once you are done with your life, you are done, forever. You go from bright mind to nothing in the flick of a switch. All those after death experiences are simply your brain cells firing last gasp efforts for life until all electrical activity ceases and you simply cease to exist.
Already stipulated to, ignoring the assumed "bright mind" which clearly doesn't apply in all cases.

It will not matter one whit how you lived your life.
Back up the truck! While it may be true that [There is no Afterlife, therefore it will not matter one whit how you lived your life], you have not supported this. Breakdown #1.

You could have lived your life for good or for evil, for the betterment of mankind or its destruction.
Willing to stipulate, despite the hyperbole.

All the efforts or sacrifices you make only gain you the pleasure or pain you receive at the moment of doing, and continue only as long as your conscious allows.
Breakdown #2. This is arguable, unless you would like to take this opportunity to redefine "you". I will posit that an effort or sacrifice I make [can] gain me the pleasure or pain I receive at the moment of doing and continue as long as it has any impact on the consciousness of those who consciously regard it. (I might actually go further and say my impact can continue even when it is not consciously remembered by those who still have consciousness after I do not, but I'm willing to be self-limiting for the present) See: Stalin or Puccini or anyone currently having a government holiday named after themselves.

So grab a gun and slaughter your neighbors, or donate your kidney to save a dieing child, either way, you die the same, and the result of your death is the same. Nothing.
Breakdown #3, inclusive. Aside from this being a follow of the above, on which we do not agree, this one has its own problem. I will not stipulate that these examples of "how you live" result in "nothing", nor that these examples of life will result in dieing "the same".

Your only hope of continuance is in your progeny, and that is only genetic continuance.
Breakdown #4. That may be "your" only hope, but it isn't a fact and thus has no bearing on ... well ... anything. Ex: Alfred Nobel has a legacy apart from any progeny.

Without progeny at the time of your death, you are without question a true dead end, genetically and spiritually, nothing.
Disregarding the above, and with a narrow definition of genetically and (even further) spiritually: willing to stipulate.

Wow, that is depressing.
Breakdown #5. It is not a fact that [death is the genetic and spiritual end of life and it is depressing] unless you mean "for you" which I'm willing to agree to, if you want me to, I guess.

Your actions in life are futile, your only true purpose, procreation, and that is simply continuing your species evolution.
Continuations of #1 and #5.

This, to me at least, is the worst possible outcome.
If it were true, willing to stipulate that it is the worst outcome for you.

Nothing can be worse than living and dieing for nothing.
Breakdown #6. Self evident (by now?).

I am sorry but, this is illogical.
Willing to stipulate, this is both sorry and illogical. ;)

It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain.
Not willing to stipulate: I believe in Oncology. #7 (Or: Willing to stipulate, just for fun. It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain, so everyone who is pained by their own constant failure to live up to the demands of their rigid, judgemental, damning gods are quite illogical. :P This is outside the scope of your argument, since you have only posed that you were merely created by a Higher Power and have said nothing about what/whom or for what purpose. This aside is for amusement only.)

I find depression painful.
Willing to stipulate. (Congratulations?)

So even if this is the truth, it is illogical to believe in it, because the only thing that can stem from it is painful.
Breakdown #8 The truth of "it is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain" is in doubt, so you can't skip to "ergo", where "so"="thus"="ergo". Beyond that, "only" has been added after the fact, see "Oncology".

Why believe in something that causes you pain, especially when you can never really know for certain the actual truth.
Rhetorical? And an assumed "only"?

I know some will say, oh but that idea that thought of nothingness and purposelessness does not cause me pain.
Stipulating to your stipulate. Leaving aside the "some" and the "me" and the assumed "purposelessness".

Well you have not thought it through logically yet or you have not experienced enough in life, and once you do, it will, or it should.
Breakdown #9. Not willing to stipulate to the Truth of this. Still as concerned by the You as the Some and I and Our and a later We.

I guess psychopaths would fall in that group, but that is because they feel nothing at all, and for the sake of our discussion I will simply assume you reading this are not a psychopath.
Willing to stipulate: I am not a psychopath. (Also willing to overlook the additional argument: What do psychopaths feel?)

So logically, if the answer is A or B and B is illogical to believe to be true, the answer must in turn be A. There are only two logical options to answer the question, were you created by a higher power, and we have shown one of those options to be illogical. Not because it does not make sense or could not be true, but because the belief in it is illogical for that belief can only cause pain. It is illogical to choose pain. So we must through application of logic, choose Yes I was created by a higher power.
Summation is faulty on its face, see all of the above, begin again.

Or: So logically (loosely?), if the answer is A or B, and B is [an illogical belief], the answer must in turn be A. There are only two logical options to answer the question, were you created by a higher power, and we (we?) have shown one of those options to be illogical [No.]. Not because it does not make sense [being illogical isn't, definitionally, "does not make sense"?] or could not be true, but because the belief in it is illogical for that belief can only cause pain [faulty "ergo"]. It is illogical to choose pain [faulty "ergo"]. So we must through application of logic [under what definition?], choose Yes I was created by a higher power [wrong].

(One of them is lying; I know which one is the center of the Universe.)

WOW never mind about Carnage Blender forget I brought it up. My post was in Off Topic for a reason, it was not about Carnage Blender and I am sorry you brought it into the discussion it certainly was not my intention to discuss Logical Religion and Carnage Blender in the same thread.

I used the door analogy to bring down the concept to a lower level bring it into simpler terms to make the point. Sorry it was ineffective for you in that regard.

Lastly, I made additional post after I presented my opinion because people were attributing things I did not say to me or saying I was wrong or improper. In order to properly present my opinion I had to make sure that those who would read the entire thread did not think my lack of correction to mean what people were saying was true, or that someone could simply say you are wrong and I was accepting it as true. Up until you got into the discussion about my improper use of the word Logic, that was the focus of everyone of my additional posts. (all one of them) I mean you always feel obligated to post when I say something about your words which you deem to be untrue or unfair, I was meerely doing the same.

then obviously if one door punishes you then there is a right door to pick.

getting back to the door example. if they were truly equal and there was an empty room on the other side of both. some people would get to their chosen room and say "wow, nice and peaceful...this is a great place" others might state "how boring...what do i do now."

we basically make our own choices and then it is in our power to be happy with those or disappointed with them. perception is everything!

Sefton, you brought up Monty and DAWG (out of the blue) in regards to my point, a fact you still have not explained or defended, and wherein lack of an explanation could lead to a vacuum of meaning that could, possibly, if one were so inclined, link Monty and DAWG to something akin to myself. I remain dreadfully non-plussed, and am gravely disappointed by this fact.

As for everything else, Bast has covered the topic far better than I ever could. I am glad I am allowed to live in a Universe where she exists, higher power or no.

Oh, pft. Stephen was going to do it, but claims even more laziness than I. :P

(Still, I cling to my own laziness inasmuch as I didn't go look up all the terms appropriate to the problems of this post. It is made clear in another thread that Seft is familiar with words like "fallacy" and "circular logic".)

WOW again Bast a wonderful deconstruction! I am pleased with it simply because you put so much effort and thought into it, and that I would inspire you to such lengths. It is a shame however that you like Sut, find it necessary to pin your deconstruction on an improper assumption. That assumption is your definition of logic, or logical, and illogical is the only one that exists. As I presented earlier there are other defintions of the term, including ones not relevant to humans.

Here is a link I wont htmlize it becase you wont follow it anyway, but it shows other definitions of the word logic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic

You are more than welcome to call them loose, or improper, but take it up with them not me, for I was using the defintion of Logic in the sense that is repeated thoughout that page from a variety of sources, that is, A system of Reasoning NOT in the sense of "The branch of philosophy dealing with the principles of reasoning. Classical logic, as taught in ancient Greece and Rome, systematized rules for deduction. The modern scientific and philosophical logic of deduction has become closely allied to mathematics, especially in showing how the foundations of mathematics lie in logic." which is as a defintion not contained it the regular dictionary average people use, but in the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. This clearly the defintion you want to force on me.

Now I WILL make an assumption, that you would next like to say that my use of the term, a mode of reasoning, which is a defintion of logic, is the same as your defintion of logic. So here is the defintion of Reasoning.

1. the act or process of a person who reasons.
2. the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
3. the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.

So lets TOTALLY deconstruct my word logic for the benefit of the insulted so that, using perfectly acceptable dictionary defintions, you can understand what I mean in my use of the terms, logic and illogical. First we define logic as a mode of reasoning, then we define reasoning as, the process of forming conclusions, judgements, or inferences from facts or premises. If you do not agree with my premise you cannot agree with my logic, but it does not mean that I have to comform my defintion of logic to yours. So here is my defintion of the word Logic.

a mode of using the process of forming conclusions, judgements, or inferences from facts or premises.

Simple word substitution, hopefully that cannot be refuted.

But in the spirt of the issue at hand, I shall comment on your hard work as regards to the content, not how Logic is defined.

Willing to stipulate the "so". Grudgingly stipulate to the "is all" which carries some degree of negative inference. Rephrase it to say the same thing without your supposed negative inferences, I simply say this is all you get, because, well, if there is no life after death, then life is all you have. Not sure how make it unnegative.

Breakdown #1 - why is it not supported because you say it is not?

Breakdown #2 - I posit that if I state "only gain you" and your conscious no longer exists after death it is false logic to bring others into the equation to prove me wrong. I did not say gains no one, I said, only gains you, and once you are dead under the original premise, you are no longer conscious, then you can no longer gain from it. Others can gain or be harmed by them, but others are not you, they are they.

Breakdown #3 - OK, not sure where to go here, I mean, it seems rather straight forward, since we are talking about you, and no one else, if there is no afterlife because you are an accidental creation, then when you die or a mass murder dies, you die identically. I am not talking about the method of your death, and I do not think you are either, but at the moment of your death, to you, there is no difference between how you die, and some else who just died, regardless of how they lived their life. There is certainly a difference to others not you, but you dead consciousness has no difference than Charles Manson's dead consciousness.

Breakdown #4 - wow I did not realize this would get so repetitive, but, again I am never discussing others, I am discussing you. Alfred Nobel may have a legacy after his death, but if there is no life after death to Alfred there is no legacy, to you and me sure, but not to him.

Breakdown #5 - well I am sorry you do not like my word order, but my english teach told me statements in an opinion piece like, in my opinion, to me, as I see it and their ilk are redundant. I am thankful I put the one where I did, or every other sentence would be Breakdown for lack of inclusion of the words in my opinion. Well shock and surprise I do not KNOW the answer either, and the whole things is in my opinion. Its the fact that you adhere to some entirely rigid defintion of the word logic you cannot see that.

I am sorry but, this is illogical.
Willing to stipulate, this is both sorry and illogical. ;)

WOOT! Cute, like Pardon? or not necessarily, but contary to the tone of your entire piece. You try to present your philosphically based logic as the "way" then resort to comments like these in total opposition to your logical deconstruction. I know, I still think they are cute, but they needed to be pointed out so those who might want to learn about the philosophical logic you profess so strongly wont get confused about the method.

OK why it is not inferred from the previous statements in the same piece I will never know, BUT, allow me to present what I think is an obvious inference as literal. "It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain." goes to "It is illogical to believe in something that causes you pain, if there is a non painful alternative which is of equal truth"

Its only in doubt because you take little pieces of things and deconstruct them without carrying the tonal inferences from previous statements.

Why believe in something that causes you pain, especially when you can never really know for certain the actual truth.
Rhetorical? And an assumed "only"? Yes Rhetorical, is it thusly invalid, no, and where do you put your presumed "only" in the statement I cannot tell.

Well you have not thought it through logically yet or you have not experienced enough in life, and once you do, it will, or it should. True pure opinion with no supporting data as fact, if I were to deconstruct it, I would also unravel this thread.

LOL I do not need to begin again, you need to begin with a different albeit equal defintion of logic and begin again :)

And my favorite

Or: So logically (loosely?), (your opinion I guess, I used a dictionary what did you use) if the answer is A or B, and B is [an illogical belief], the answer must in turn be A. There are only two logical options to answer the question, were you created by a higher power, and we (we?) have shown one of those options to be illogical [No.] (to you no, to someone else maybe yes, what make you an authority on how some else may interpret my words). Not because it does not make sense [being illogical isn't, definitionally, "does not make sense"? so you tell me I cannot define something one way, and yet fail to present your own proper defintions, thats logical?] or could not be true, but because the belief in it is illogical for that belief can only cause pain [faulty "ergo"]. It is illogical to choose pain [faulty "ergo"]. So we must through application of logic [under what definition? the dictionaries defintion, where are you getting yours?], choose Yes I was created by a higher power [wrong, in your opinion which are welcome to and MORE than welcome to share, doesn't make your opinion and more or less correct than my own, however, simply because it is yours]

There some effort right back at you, as much as I didn't really want to do it, because in the end, you are tripping over a word you have defined so narrowly as to make all use of it capable only when presented against the most rigid standards possible. I on the other hand used the common accepted defintion of logic, not the Aristotle version you seem to think is the only one.

I wish religion is like an animal so I can shot it dead and everyone still would keep kicking it... like kicking a dead horse...

But I was using _yours_. At least the #1 entry you provided.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

I'm not seeing how piling one invalid statement on top of another to get from a supposition to a conclusion is "logical". Use inductive, use deductive, go with the Greeks if you must, if you can translate to mathematics or plane geometry feel free but then I won't be able to follow it and we'll have to go back to depending on Sut for conversation. You provided a definition, which I took to mean you were telling us that you had agreed to it and were applying it.

What is "logical" about what you've concluded? I honestly _don't_ see it. You must see that your statements are _at face value_ _invalid_, as I've already stipulated that you aren't retarded, or make clearer what you are doing that allows for invalid statements to support your conclusion.

As for why I focus on it: beginning at the beginning, which I have stipulated, per you, is as good a place as any to start. After we get past your use of "logical", we can do your use of "religion".

GL friend, bud pal, you just forcing me to post?

Nov *believes* his existance won't continue after death. And it's illogical.

No, I never ever once in every character I typed said that, I said it is illogical to believe that IF it causes you pain. I think it should cause pain, and if it does cause you pain, it is illogical to believe it. But it doesn't make his non-painful belief illogical.

"It's the assumption that I can't see meaning in my life without being the play thing of same larger being I'm speaking to."

Who made that assumption, I did not even assume there is higher power, let alone you are his play thing, I said, you can assume there is or there is not, and if you assume there is not, and that assumption causes you pain it is illogical because the other path is equally true.

OK, to be clear, I brought up Monty and DAWG as examples to show a person with LESS intelligence than you (Monty) can cause plenty of damage to CB, so your assumption that you cannot is not true. I am sorry you took such offense to it, because honestly ALL I was trying to say it, you CAN hurt the game, EVEN if you are not trying to, because ANYONE can let alone someone of your abilities.

Last but not least, if you do not like my opinion or how I arrived at the comforting feeling I get from the answers to the unknowable questions, then sorry we do not agree. This path is not a good one for you, I sincerely hope you find one that is. If however you are unsure about your path, or even what path to get on, and this idea, helps you find your path or even allows you to follow mine, then I am glad I presented it.

Okay. Now you are saying it's merely your opinion. If you'd said that to begin with, half of us wouldn't have bothered. Arguing opinions is sheer stupidity. You presented a "logical argument", which I boldly, nay even recklessly, assumed was for the purposes of discussion.

The entirety of discussion of opinion:
Here is my opinion.
Really? Here is mine.

Bast, it was the dictionaries first defintion, and I presented it only so everyone could see ALL the various defintions, not just one narrow minded one. As I stated, I used this defintion, "a mode of using the process of forming conclusions, judgements, or inferences from facts or premises" which I did. I made a premise, that there are two options to the questions were created by a higher power. I then followed one option to its logical end that is, I used a method of forming conclusions based upon a premise. You are again welcome to say I do not like your logic, or your definition of logic is not mine, but you cannot say my opinion is wrong.

OK, I guess I can...at least see where the Monty/DAWG references came from. Still has no context in what we were talking about. We were discussing you and I, the way we write/speak, and if that can damage CB. The answer to that is still "no", I cannot damage CB with the way I am. I don't scam, I don't use bots (bots aren't even related to writing!) You bringing Monty/DAWG into it would be like me comparing you to Charles Manson. I mean, he DID do damage with words and a powerful personality, but I would never bring him up in the same context as you. It would be meaningless at best and hurtful at worst.

I will finish (finally) with wishing you the best on your path, your comfort, your thoughts. I will, however, once more bring up option C to your somewhat assuming final paragraph in your most recent post... I'm not looking for a "path" at all, so all of the various path options are entirely, logically, meaningless in that context. *smile*

I don't see anywhere that Bast states your opinion is wrong. In fact, her last comment ended with the proper discourse when it comes to opinions: a simple exchange. No "yeah buts", no "mine is better". When in the realm of pure opinion, there is not much anyone can do other than listen and act within their own sphere of influence accordingly.

Bast is likely spitting out whatever she is drinking right now to hear me say that... I was NOT a follower of the above words when she and I conversed more in person. I was a listener, a nodder, and then a "yeah, well, you're wrong and here's why kind of guy." I'm doing my best to change, and am trying very hard in my life to use devices like the realization of "C -- something else entirely" to be a better communicator.

" I then followed one option to its logical end that is, I used a method of forming conclusions based upon a premise."

Is it really a method? and does it really fall under the definition you used? if: either the conclusions or the premise is/are faulty?

I always use dictionary.com. :P

<myopinion>
Bast, you bring up things like having holidays named after you, and Nobel's legacy etc, and please don't see this as a 'poke' or an 'attack',

Personally, this is how I see it: what is so good about leaving a mighty good/bad reputation behind after your death?

Say, I am a genie and I will give you two options, and grant you one of those options!

*First option, I will give you "x" amount of pleasure while you live, let's just call that "x" 100. However, sadly you will have to live the life of a scoundrel, stealing, maiming and raping everything in your path. Fortunately, only a handful of people know what a terrible person you were, and as a result you were left with enough people who respected your money and power to leave you with "y" amount of pleasure afterdeath in the form of respect, let's call that "y" 25.

*Second option, I will give you "a" amounts of pleasure after your death, in the form of a memorial hall, public holiday, a charitable organisation as your legacy, and beautiful young children that sing you praises every year. Let's call that "a" 100. You will live the life of a saint, and oops, you forgot to have fun along the way and you will experience only "b" amounts of pleasure in life, where "b" is 25.

As unrealistic as my scenarios sound, i think they have some truth in them. Think of that brown-noser at your work. Think of the ruthless people who take what is not theirs, and get away with it scotch free. I have someone who I work with, and she gets paid more than myself simply because she demanded it by threatening to quit. And she flaunts that fact proudly. Think of people who scalp tickets. Think of people who push in queues, treat others badly, trolls, etc. You can do all those things and safely get away with it to an extent.

Alternatively, you can be the person who waits patiently in queues, gathering a quiet storm watching the rude people cut int, the guy who works 100% and gets pats on the back instead of pay rises, the person who returns lost wallets and cellphones and etc... And guess what, unless you cured cancer, you won't get any recognition.

Some might say "but those who are close to you will look up to you and respect you for that". But to me, the reality is that those who are close to me would EASILY forgive me for cutting in cues, not returning stolen wallets and etc... if you disagree, I suggest you find new friends. </myopinion>

So Bast, let me ask you. What will it be, option 1, or 2? They both result in equal amount of pleasure. You are a person who believes in nothingness after death. Tell me, and tell me with reason why you'd choose anything but option 1. How much more pleasure does option 2 have to be worth for you to choose it?

I guess my point is, all Sefton is saying that anything that happens after you die is pointless because you aren't there to experience it. If you disagree, then I will throw you a birthday party. It'll be the best party ever, full open bars, catered, a DJ, a huge dance floor, and tons of beautiful people. Sadly, it'll be half way around the globe, and you won't be there to enjoy it. But hey, it doesn't matter, as long as it's in your honour right?

Returning to my thoughts, why is there ANY incentive to choose moral righteousness, if the opposite brings you more monetary and personal pleasures? Are you actually THAT good of a person that you can stand and watch others abuse and push boundaries and simply be happy in yourself that you are not that kind of person? Are you happy to see your workmate earn 10k a year more from blackmailing your boss? Are you happy to see people get served at eateries faster than you because they just jump in the front?

If you do, I have amazing respect for you, because that's the kind of person I wish I was. Sadly, I am not, and even more sadly, I can't bring myself up to be ruthless. I cannot cut queues. I cannot steal, I cannot keep lost goods. That is why I take comfort in my faith that there will be some sort of reward for my good behaviour. Of course, that's not the only reason I believe, but it's one of the most beautiful perks of my beliefs. You can argue with me all day, but I will always believe, and on my deathbed I will await my rewards, and even if you were right; there wasn't any higher being, at least in my nothingness I won't know it.

Oh, and those who keep saying "why should I believe in a god when he obviously doesn't do anything to help us (wars, etc)", or "where was he when I was in strife A. B., etc". Someone much smarter than me once said (much more eloquently) that he finds it curious that everyone is quick to blame god for the bad things, and yet so hesitant to attribute him for everything good... And what part of religion is supposed to be 'faith' if he plainly jumped in front of you in all white, saying "ta da, here I am, your god. Oh, by the way, I've saved your entire family from death and strife, and struck down all non believers in a billowing winds of fire, brimestone and thunder."
</myopinion>

In my upbringing it was exactly the opposite: thanking God for everything good, and for anything bad, saying it was God's will or part of "God's Plan". Interesting. Maybe that colored my eyes in life too, because (think) I can say I know a lot more people who thank God for all that is good than I know those that blame Him for the bad...

"I guess my point is, all Sefton is saying that anything that happens after you die is pointless because you aren't there to experience it."

For the sake of ...well ... my sanity: Is that all he is saying? And if it is, what supports that? Sure, it's possible that one could find enough people in agreement to create quite a movement. And it's possible one could base enough other tenets on it to create a religion.

It's certainly an opinion, and one that anyone is free to hold. It is not, however, a fact. Using it as point, support or conclusion will not get one nearer to Truth.

Does _anyone_ know how to play this game?

If you want me to inject myself, as opposed to a Generalized Other (just for you, baby!), into it: yes, I do believe what happens after I die matters, even if I'm not around to enjoy it. Ex: this is why I don't have the "Screw it! Won't matter to me!" objection to environmentalism.

Lesson: The above does _not_ mean it matters to me _after_ I die. The above does _not_ mean I don't object to environmentalism. The above does _not_ mean others don't have better reasons to live environmentally protectionist lives. The above does _not_ mean I live an environmentally protectionist life. The above does _not_ mean I have offered an opinion viz: how I die, when I die, who's around after I die, what punishment or reward might be meted out at such a time, what effect progeny have on this belief, or anything other than exactly and only what I said.

It can be expressed as:
I believe _now_ that what happens _after_ I die matters, if not to me.
Therefore, I do not subscribe to the "Screw it! Won't matter to me!" view against being environmentally conscientious.

"For the sake of ...well ... my sanity: Is that all he is saying?" yeah, you're right, but I was actually answering to a specific post, and it would've made much more sense if it was directly after that post ;P

Perhaps I'm just daft, but I don't really see what environmentalism has to do with what I'm talking about... I can see why one would not want the entire world to go down in flames after/at their death, but what's stopping you from committing "minor crimes" and generally living as a scoundrel which won't necessarily end the world as we know it? Getting paid more than your co-workers thru persistent brown nosing and pretence of work only on supervision isn't going to destroy all life on earth earlier.. it'll just make a few people angry, unless you're a fanatic of the butterfly effect o.O
I think it's like comparing yelling abuse at someone and bludgening the with a hammer and continuing on to hammer their family members, friends, workmates, heck - everybody (in terms of severity).

Again, maybe I missed the point, and am totally off topic.
Oh well,
I will throw a congratulatory party for winning this crazy multi-headed argument for you Bast, I hope you enjoy it as much as I will ;)

/me withdraws from this conversation with one last thought - Seft, I think you meant well but in the heat of discussion, certain things that shouldn't have been said were said. We all do it, we're just human...

Yes, I know how to play this game.

But just because one CAN do something doesn't mean one SHOULD do something.

Just for you, baby!

*smile*

"GL friend, bud pal, you just forcing me to post?"

Yes. :D I would like to continue this discussion, away from the 'logical' arguement. ;)

"Nov *believes* his existance won't continue after death. And it's illogical.

No, I never ever once in every character I typed said that, I said it is illogical to believe that IF it causes you pain. I think it should cause pain, and if it does cause you pain, it is illogical to believe it. But it doesn't make his non-painful belief illogical."

:) OK Sef, firstly, how could Death cause *you* pain. Not the act of dying, but the actual state of being Dead.

Either;

A) A Special, immortal part of you continues on other other things. No pain there. Unless you want to get specific and say you go to a hell to be punished.

B) Nothingness awaits you after Death. Which while incomprihensible to us, can't cause us any pain. As there is nothing to be felt.

Please explain how Death can be painful to you. And why, if Death is painful, it s illogical to think that would be the way of things. :)

But, if you are resorting to nothing more than personal *belief*, it's the exact same arguement as Novice. ;)

Unless you are witholding some information unknown to the rest of us that is. ;)

Logic does have a great deal to do with faith, you need to understand how our logic come to be, if an event is to occur because it is logically, then at some point in the past we would have had a similar experience and because we have the faith (or belief) that this event is likely to occur again, it gives us a basis for future events.

I'm hesitant to use a dictionary definition, because, as above in this thread it just leads to discussion of word meanings. Regardless of the title of this 'religion,' the idea it represents is quite interesting. It isn't consistant at points, as with all religions.

To be honest though, when I think about it, what you're basicaly presenting is living with an optimistic approach towards life. Which in the end is what religions are design to do, I believe that all humans are born with some sort of emotional void full of unanswered questions (I'll leave you to write down the list ) ;). Religions are successful because they fill this void to some degree, but why would you believe in something so illogical and sometimes even absurd, the answer is it provides them with a certainty in a chaotic life, their belief provides them with hope to get though hard times, provides a sense of justice when there is no fairness available in life. I'm not saying you _need_ a religion to have all this, sure you can use the scientific approach and attribute everything to action/reaction/random events. But to live life with a religion as your backbone is much easier, and you benefit from it.

But here is where the problem begins, the idea of living a religious life that gives you a great deal of morale support is perfect in _theory_. However, the problems that most religions have come from man himself, having control of someones belief allows you to create or change that persons belief to some degree. And so the usual lines, with power comes corruption etc.

Woot! What a thread.

*Begin Glory's Opinion*

The whole discussion of logical is getting tedious, move on, pluueeezzz.

Here is a new little idear of sorts. Nothing too earth shattering but some of you might find it interesting.

I believe there are two forces at work in the universe, yep that's right, only two. Light and darkness. Light represents and encompasses all the ennobling traits of mankind, while darkness represents and encompasses the degrading traits of mankind.

Truth, not perceived truth, but actual truth, is encompassed within the Light realm. Falsehood, not perceived but actual, is obviously in the Darkness realm. They can both be perceived and actual at the same time. Just because you believe something to be true subjectively does not mean that it is _not_ true actually, and conversely the same for falsehood, believing something to be false does not mean it is not the actual false.

Following the above, if you chose the better (Light) path in life, you will gain a greater measure of Light, your countenance will display a certain genuineness and even association with Light. People will see it in your very face if you are following a life of Light or Darkness. As you grow in your affinity and discernment of Truth/Light, you will begin to see (notice the Light metaphor) the correct choice because the Light you possess intrinsically shines through and removes the Darkness from the equation. (Light and Darkness cannot occupy the same space at the same time.)

*Starts to hum the song "You Light Up My Life"*
Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing that in there.

That is one reason why I believe the world does not dwell in absolute Light (permanent daylight) or absolute Darkness (permanent nighttime). The Light and Darkness were divided to show that everything in life has an opposite.

I could go on for quite some time about my thoughts but I would like to offer a few last comments directed to some of the above comments.

"Why do many people attribute goodness to God? and Why does God allow all the evil and bad things in the world to take place?"

God to me is the ultimate representation of Light, in fact I believe God to be made of Light. I believe that each person in this life has an intrinsic gift of freedom of choice. God, as a being of Light knows that the only way to gain Light/Truth is to make choices that will bring a greater measure of Light into our lives, and as such will not and furthermore, cannot I believe, remove our freedom of choice. So, why all the evil in the world? Simply stated, it is brought about by people choosing Darkness and God allowing it because even he cannot remove freedom of choice. Yes, God is restrained in that aspect regarding his creations.

The things I have stated are _my_ opinion and should be regarded as such. If you read my entire post, thank you, I appreciate your time.

*End Glory's Opinion*

Glory, I don't really want to be rude, but what the HELL are you talking about? Can you give me an example of something that is actual truth, and not just perceived truth? What determines what is actual truth as opposed to what is just perceived? But I do agree, the thread started out interesting, but it's been degraded to arguing over definitions and choice of wording.

A "perceived" truth is that the solar system is geocentric, this was accepted as a scientific truth a number of years ago. The "actual" truth was indeed a heliocentric solar system.

Some times through hindsight is the only means of establishing "actual" truths. But once known, I believe we are then in a position to not choose the lesser (Darkness) path, if we are confronted with the choice again, or better yet can help another to not have to learn the truth in the same way we did, we can impart Truth/Light to others, but only after we have received the Light/Truth.

Other truths are as the Declaration of Independence states, are "self-evident", at least to most people. :P

The above example is not great, but it gives a demonstration of the principles to which I ascribe.

But that is the argument of the thread, whether you think Sefton is right or not, it is about your opinion on the word 'logical'.
Believing in religion does not make you more logical than the next, it just makes you believe more in a hgher power.
I don't believe in this power and yes I wonder why others do when so many prayers are not answered and so many bad things happen in this world especially over religious issues but I do not openly try to disgrace the belief I can only discuss the use of the word logical and whether you believe or not, no matter how you put your argument you are still either agreeing or disagreeing with Sefton's use of the word.

If you try to explain calculus or physics to a child, most will find the concepts and ideas hard to grasp and even illogical. Logic has to do with proposed premises and deductions from those premises.

If one cannot understand a proposed premise and thus cannot deduce anything from said premise, then it would be the opposite of Logical, it would be illogical to them.

Religion being given a label of "logical" is, I believe, a purely subjective point of reasoning. Religion by my definition is one or more beliefs (faith) of an individual or group, not deducted ideas from proposed premises. Because also by my definition of religion, the beliefs of a religion are universal and absolute truths. So, comparing Logic to Religion is like comparing deduced truths (which may or may not be actual) to perceived truths (which also may or may not be actual). They may be the same truths ultimately, but they manner of gathering them and even mode of living them, can and usually is, altogether quite different.

Glory, I'm unsure what you mean by discussing the notion of Light and no Light (Darkness). The view that the universe, or at least within man himself there are two sides the light (good) and dark (bad) side are basically a product of dualistic religions.

Take Christianity, although it is essentially a monotheism religion, the Maker or God being the singular being from which all everything came to be, heavily represented as the Light or Truth. Yet, from him comes Lucifer, the fallen angel, with whom darkness and falsehood is associated. Over time the notions of good and evil have also been associated with both respectively. Now, in this particular religion it can be argued if Lucifer is a creation of God, then is he trully evil? Is that which comes from truth (light) not always true? I believe it's very abstract and often more a metaphor for more basic elements of life.

I myself associate this relationship between Light and Good as a development of ancient beliefs of a Sun God. Maybe, being the provider of light that allows crops to grow etc. Naturally man would associate it's (wanted) presence as being good.

Light = Life
Darkness = Absence of Life

In lieu of Christianity and the Lucifer being the offspring of God, it further proves my point of freedom of choice. Light and Darkness are _not_ God and the Devil. They are absolutes that have existed and will exist forever. So, Lucifer being the offspring of God in no way attributes his (Lucifer's) choices in regards to his own acceptance of Light and Darkness. God is not _the_ source of Light, he is _a_ source of Light. Just as I am also a source (albeit lesser) of Light (hopefully =)).

That would be the same as a person who chooses in life to become a heinous murdering rapist, that the blame and source for such actions be attributed to that persons parent or parents. We all know that parents can influence their children, but only insofar as the children allow that influence.