Short answer: I believe in God.

Most Objectivists are romantics.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what a reverse perception is. My definition of truth is that which corresponds to reality. Or pertains to reality if that makes you more comfortable. Reverse of that would be that which doesn't correspond to reality. To that, my only reply would be, huh?

Your 1st example is not faith. It is logic. Big difference. I think that we should discontinue this discussion. I can see no way that either of us will convince one another. If you were some goober who thought that the world was only 6,000 years old and took the bible word for word literally, eschewing science, then I wouldn't have engaged you at all. You are an intelligent guy, and you understand the Objectivist viewpoint even though you cannot embrace it fully. Let's drop the topic with one another and proceed apace . Still friends.

He was a typical guy who was too ashamed to ask for directions.

Let me ask you this: Moses was obviously a pretty smart guy. He wrote the first 5 books of the bible. So, tell me, how could he wander about in the desert for 40 years? All he had to do was keep in a straight line guided by the sun or stars and he'd eventually come out someplace in a few years or less. If there is any significant history to the story at all it is likely that Moses (a name that is from the word Mose meaning "man") if he was a prince of Egypt, he was also a General, because that's what princes did. If he took the Israelites, I'm sure he got very few if any soldiers. He had to teach them to become warriors. The desert wasn't barren of people. There were many villages and towns all over the place and especially near the Nile. I think he raided villages and gathered up the eligble men and built an army. When it became formidable enough, he turned his attention to the cities. He died before attaining his biggest triumphs which was left to his protégé, Joshua. A name bastardized into Jesus some time later.

According to Biblical accounts, Moses talked with God face to face on several occasions. So did Abraham. So did Adam. There are some religions who believe in "invisible" Gods, including the Christian churches which adopted the Nicean Creed. The Hindu gods have forms of all kinds of animal-headed humanoids. I hesitate to mock any religion, however. If what I know to be true is true, it gains me nothing to disparage others for the sake of amusement.

All people start out in the same boat: questing for knowledge. By ridiculing their current state I am only ridiculing my former state and potentially alienating one with whom I might become a friend. On the other hand, I am more than willing to debate principle, because principles transcend the inventions of man and any religion or philosophy based on demonstrably false principles. It comes down to what is more important: what is right or who is right.

It is also faith which drives the one businessperson to do their homework. The one with the greater faith is the one who invests more time into actualizing his goals because his goals mean that much more to him! Faith is not a digital on/off, it is an analog measured in degrees. Faith leads one to pursue truth - it does not act in the place of it. Truth is a noun, faith is a verb.

"Also, there are no goals after death, since there is no existence after death."

That's an untenable proposition because it can only be disproven - never proven. It is a negative assertion rather than a positive.

I would also tell you that I know for myself that existence does not terminate with death. More than that I reserve for a private conversation.

I have a reverse perception of what you call the truth.
I also prefer lite beer, not being a teetotaler kinda Christian.

I've been called that before.
It's been a long time though.

When General Moses was in the dessert and his army was attacked, if the attacking general said for him to give up his god (Idol) they would make a deal, Moses would laugh and say, "Our God is invisible."

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. No matter how you slice it, faith cannot live beside truth. Take your example, for instance. One man opens a Gidget Shop because he has been selling gidgets and he thinks he knows the business. He invests on faith. Another man does extensive homework, checking out profit margins, probable overhead, location,etc. before making a decision. Who has a better chance of success? It is true that they both can fail or succeed, but there is no doubt to me that the guy who did his homework has a better chance. Also, there are no goals after death, since there is no existence after death.

"They have nothing else going for them, so why not?"

I am laughing in sad agreement. The whole definition of the Islamic God reminds me much about the whimsical nature of the Greek Pantheon Plato lambasted quite efficiently in his "Republic".

The objection I have to the Objectivist definition of faith is that it creates a straw-man argument by presupposing the absurdity of faith and by literally defining faith as being anti-logic - as you have used it. A definition must be of what something is, however, and not what it is not to be valid.

What is faith? It is the drive that impels one to act in pursuance of a future outcome without a guarantee. Faith is what drives the entrepreneur to start one's own business. He has no guarantee of success, and even failure may be due to forces outside his control, but he pursues the goal anyway because the end result is of such value that it justifies the risk. Faith is also what drives the scientist to test a hypothesis. He has no guarantee that the experiment will give him the answer he seeks and thereby justify the expenditures involved in setting up the experiment, but he moves on nevertheless because of the value of the knowledge to be had.

The real disagreement between Objectivism and religion isn't about faith at all, but about the idea of a goal who's attainment lies after ...

Death.

The one broad brush that works for all religions is Faith/Mysticism. Without those twins it cannot be called a religion. Both faith and mysticism are anti-reason which makes them anti-Objectivism. Although they may have certain rules in common, that in no way causes correspondence between them.

That may be how an atheist views religion, but it's a far cry from how religions themselves view things. The biggest logical flaw I see an any generic anti-religious argument is the attempt to put all religions under a single umbrella. It is a fallacy of inclusion.

Much of your statement is an attempt to brand all religions with the same broad brush stroke. Philosophy must be taken one precept at a time, one principle at a time, one teaching at a time. The biggest problem with the generic assertion you make is that every religion defines "God" differently. You certainly wouldn't attribute any of what you just said to Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, or Hari Krishna's, yet all are recognized religious philosophies. Your comments are more specifically directed at "Christians", "Jews", and "Muslims", but again your statements are overly broad, as each has a very different definition of God due to divergence in origin. Even that doesn't even go into the individual sects within each of those respective brands, such as Sunni, Shia, Wahab, and Baath within Islam, Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jewry, and a panoply of hundreds of various Christian faiths.

That's why I always start with principles. Once you identify proper principles, look for the sects or philosophies which abide by those principles and discard the rest. You'll never find the needle in the haystack if you look at every piece of straw.

One of the basic tenets of Islam. Which is one reason why they get so many suicide volunteers. God's plan according to them is that life is an unpleasant struggle, but do as I say and have eternal paradise. They have nothing else going for them, so why not?

Life can be hard. It is for most people, which is why religions promise heaven. People live a lie in many cases because they perceive it to be easier than facing the truth.

Yep.

You are a romantic.

Lots of infidels in the Gulch.
Also pagans, unbelievers, disbelievers, questioners and searchers.

RE: "If there is no afterlife in which to be held to account for actions such as murder, etc., what is the moral case against such?" Depends on whether one's moral code is derived from religion or reason. Faith-based acceptance of religious "moral" doctrines negates the need for most moral precepts with the exception of "obedience to God's will." Atrocities of all kinds become "morally acceptable" if they are part of "God's plan."