Sorry to hear you would like to talk to Jesus, since there was NO such person, the charactor Jesus was created from several sources mostly fictional ( Lord Mithras & the Zorastrians for one and maybe a few obscure itinerate preachers.

I bet you and Luminon will get along grandly.

Welcome.

                   To believe the Jesus charactor quoted in Matt 10; 35-39  AND  Matt; 5 is the same person is ALSO TO BELIEVE that Mr.T & Mr.Rogers Are the same person.   This is Absurd and assinine to the extreme.

                  To believe that any Nazarene drinks wine, and attends week long weddings (in Canna) where it turns water INTO wine,  while hanging with prostitutes and street urchins,  is also to believe that Mormans celebrate in Temple with scotch, rum, beer and wine while Vegas showgirls dance at the alter topless.    This is absurd and assinine almost to the extreme of thinking Mr.T &  Mr. Fred Rogers are the same person.

                  Jesus Christ is not a name it is a TITLE!!!  It means "The lords annointed Salvation"  It's why christians call him Christ the savior, it's what the name means. It is NOT a name you give to a real person.

Holy.....you're going to catch a lot of flak.

How do you know the odds if you don't experiment?

Hey you're absolutely right! More or less... If you want to label me as an Agnostic theist go right ahead, because I checked with the definition and it's me!My problem is with the word theism. Theism means God. It's God's traditional definition which bothers me. I don't know if He thinks the way we think he thinks... and I don't know if I can even say "someone".

Have you guys seen the movie "Contact"? One of my favorites! Based on a novel of a very beloved Atheist - Carl Sagan

It as some adorable quotes like:

"Do you love your father?"

"Yes"

"Prove it!"

Or the personal experience she had at the end which she believed with all her heart but without any proof. Personal experience is a rational experience to make one's beliefs... Carl Sagan believed that.

Although I have a degree in science and I try to be a rational person... several things make me a "believer":

- My own personal experience (which I will not tell)

- Kalam Cosmologial argument.

- The validity of near death experiences.

- A test I made with a home made version of Ouija game

- The problem of morality

- The existence of consciousness
 

Jeffrey... I do believe that there was someone they called Jesus... don't try to convince me otherwise by making funny analogies. You can call him John the Carpenter, I don't care. I said I don't believe in the Bible, though is a reference cultural and historical book. Someone has been in Palestine 2000 years ago that changed the world and inspired people like Gandhi, Luther King, Tolstoy and ... made Nietzsche crazy. I 'd like to meet him. What proof do you have Socrates has a better chance of existing than Jesus?!

Humans most all feel love but it's completely subjective. My loving feeling may differ from yours. And you wouldn't describe love as a universe creating deity. It's a human feeling produced by the human brain, period. It does not prove the existence of anything but the human brain. Additionally, those feelings are chemicals and in the future we will know what love actually is at the atomic level. There are also measurements of real personal experience. If a UFO came down and took me away to fantasyland where I cavorted with doe-skinned nymphs that would be one thing. If I sat staring at the heavens wishing the nymphs would hurry up and come, then that would be imaginary.

Ellie's experience on Vega was not the same as believing in god. If I went to heaven and chatted with god in full detail then I would believe it. But I have not and no one else ever has, either. Contact, great movie though it is, really reflects our need to know, and the cage of human comprehension that encloses us, and that's all.

Man you're really an extremist!

Love may be subjective but it's real and you can't prove it on a test tube. Period. I'm just trying to prove that there are things that are real but have no substance. Like abstracts. We don't have to experience reality with all our senses (which tend to trick us all the time) to know reality (i.e. If I went to heaven and chatted with god in full detail then I would believe it)

I had my personal experience with a reality beyond this one. It was an indirect experience but an experience nonetheless. And since it was personal I will not loose my time there.

Prove it. Many people have tried that and still can't find an explanation to consciousness... We should be philosophical zombies.

«Morality is a set of cultural norms passed down through generations.»

Careful mate! You're stepping on land mines here! If morals are just cultural norms nothing give us the right to judge rights and wrongs because there really aren't any. Gang rape is ok if the culture say so, and so is murder.

You're mate Michael Shermer famously said: “Abandon free will in favor of determinism and moral culpability flies out the court window"

«Near death experiences have no validity outside the human brain.» 

That's your opinion. I've studied the matter. Read books and peer reviewed studies and that was not my conclusion.

«Your personal experience is too subjective for us to consider.» You got that right... but then again I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just showing my points and trying to understand yours

«Cosmology is a bad argument that excludes the deity from its fundamental premise.» 

Since you didn't even bother to look what the Kalam argument is I'll enlighten you very rapidly... In this Universe everything has a cause... there has been multiple causes for the existence of things since the Big Bang. The Big Bang origin (cause) is a mystery but is a must! Since it was space-time which was created whatever created the Universe exists outside this continuum. Given the premise that Nothingness can't create anything... There has to exist a "platonic existence of something" that gave birth to the Universe. This thing has no cause because it exists outside space-time so it wont abide by the same rules.   

«The ouija board thing. Well. Perhaps the addition of this to the list is instructive in terms of your spiritual nature as a person, but it does not reflect any knowable reality as far as I can tell.»

I will speak about my field experience on this at a latter time.

«In any case Teralek, you are a theist and I'm not sure it's possible to attach anything rational to that.» That's your opinion on what's rational or not... 

My information is, that the Jesus guy was one of these teachers. As a jewish initiate of a mystical sect, he repeated the ancient story on his own life, purposedly. Some stuff like virgin birth or earthquake on the day of his death is of course fake. Too bad there is so little evidence for him. Reputedly, the real date of his birth was 24 years earlier than scholars think, but I don't know, really.

As you see, people here are hardcore rationalists. Yeah, they always say how much science discovered, but they never say how much research got lost, because it seemed too extraordinary. Rationalists probably take so much LSD, that they can't trust their senses anymore, only reason and logic Good luck with discussion. How do you know here that you scored a point? By sudden silence and change of topic.
But still, this forum is a place where i can use long, complicated words (and foreign language) and people won't lynch me for it.

Medications can change the emotions, fears and moods of an individual.  Depression medication is a clear example of this.  So emotions are tied directly to brain state.  Memories can be lost due to brain damage.  So memories are part of the brain. 

What is there left to be not part of the brain?

To suggest that moral must come from outside of a culture or outside of the social dynamic is to suggest that morals are not useful.  If morals are useful we can derive them simply on their use.  If one system of morals is more useful than a conflicting system of morality then the more useful system is more moral.  So yes we can judge better and worse moral systems.

Hey your friend Whatthedeuce helped me out with my "labeling"

I maybe be an Ignostic!

I really have a semantic problem when it comes to define "God" or "Deity".

I can only attribute "It" very few characteristics.

Hey dude! Your beef is with Christian evangelics not with me!! I can make the same argument you did with Socrates. Jesus "was probably a real person". Talking about God or churches says nothing to the likelihood of Jesus existence! How can the fact that "evangelics are bugging your ass" say that Jesus probably didn't exist in the first place?!

I know nothing of Lord Mithras... I will investigate

Matthew 10:35-39 not same Jesus as Matthew 5:1-12

However,

Matthew 10:35-39 same Jesus as Matthew 5:27-30.

Can't Jesus have multiple personalities? Would you expect that of a god?  

Quantum mechanics is on another championship... Not even you can explain what's behind quantum particles popping out to existence! I speculate is a property of space-time continuum... and It's connection to a transcendent reality. As to prove that everything in the Universe has a cause... the best proof I can tell you is go study physics or chemistry! What do you want me to say? I mean, you are here because your parents had sex, the Sun is here because an ancient supernova cloud coalesced... etc. BTW- have you heard about those studies that claim that consciousness can influence reality? fascinating...

So if everything reverts back in time to the Big Bang and the Big Bang is a phenomenon in this reality it MUST have a cause. However it can't have a cause according to standard theory because "before" the Big Bang there was no space-time... we've reached a paradox... I solve the paradox by saying that there is something beyond it that generated the Universe. This something needs no cause to exist because as you've said "causality is nonsensical without time".

«how do you know this "first cause" could "cause" anything?» We are here! 

«Alright, now, if you can answer all of those questions, you have a first cause. Congratulations! Now, why should we call this first cause God?» I go no further mate... from here on I'm an Ignostic 

From here I don't haven't any strong arguments really... But I personally believe that there is another reality and this is some sort of "continuum" of Absolutes. Absolute love as shown by NDEs. There is another level of existence. This level is unlike anything that we can experience on this reality. Our mission here is to learn, it's like a school. I speculate that we have to live at this plane because we wouldn't bare the potentialities of the other reality. As a baby can't ride a roller coaster until he can grow strong and bare it.

No mate! Your conclusion about NDEs is the one which is hasty and partial to your cause! The investigators don't often reach to conclusions like yours. They always postulate several explanations and claim for more studies... "off record" some of the scientists involved think that the experiences are true. The Lancet study is a classic one because they couldn't find an explanation. It's not oxygen deprivation because NDEs don't happen to everyone. They only detected it in 18% of the sample. There was no correlations... or so I remember. Medical science say you're mind will shut down in about 10 sec after the heart stops, but people involved seem to remember details after the 10 sec period. If NDEs are true, there are no judging Gods, we judge ourselves... by realizing the linkage between all things and all actions and all thoughts... http://www.iands.org/

These people wake up and tell they just had the most VIVID experience of their lives... although they should be unconscient... even blind people have these experiences! Even Atheists... they stop being atheists BTW.

No one saw, yet, what the scientists put on the cealing because no one looked at it... yet... it's understandable... when your're dying the last thing you worry is the graffiti on a lamp...

It's also understandable that you bias your interpretation of the experience... When you experience something unrelated to anything you've ever seen you try to relate it to something...

Yes I see a problem with your morality... if there are no absolutes you can defend rape if in your mind its ok, and I cannot condemn you because as you say morality is an abstract, it's not normative. There are absolutes (Universalism) in ethics - most philosophers think there are. Without Universalism anything goes, really. I've already explained my position in Ethic theory in a previous post. This was a much though theme. I've done some research on the subject. I'm going to quote Noam Chomsky if I may:

“... if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.”

I will make a post about my "Ouija" experience...

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.

I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.

With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.

Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.

This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me." Bertrand Russell

My favorite quote!!!!

Well mate... I don't agree with you... and I've explained why in my previous post... this doesn't prove God of course. It just proves the First Cause and the probable existence of another plane of reality... which I happen to believe in as much as you believe in atheism. 

I always question more when it takes an essay to answer a question or to offer an explanation. Have I said that before?

I don't know of any. If fact I believe the Bible was never in favor of a king. God and baby Jesus have too big an ego for that. A human head of the church has been called the anti-christ in book of revelations. In the old testament the Jews wanted a King. God is said to have begrudgingly granted that.

I never understood how the Catholic Church choose to have their priest called 'father' when this text is contrary.

Matthew 23:8-12. Jesus said to his disciples:

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I have also wondered why Christians get so involved with politics - Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. I really think they just use Christianity for their political gain and nothing else.

John 18:36-37

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Perhaps someone else might know of texts that reference what you want, but it seems a consistent message to me.

The assertions you make are nonsensical. The idea that somehow it suits an atheist to tear supportive social environments to pieces, to go around merrily raping, in gangs, because this is an 'advantage' to the many. What the fuck are you talking about? Where is the advantage to the husband of this woman? Her father and brothers and her friends? Where is the advantage to her children? What 'many' are you talking about? This donkey you are pinning a tail on is a crock of shit. In the family environment and in all social environments, things like stability, support, alliances and intimate relationships are vital to individual and group survival. They are paramount. There's a reason rape is among the worst of crimes and it's not because it is an 'advantage to the many' it's because it is an affront to many.

You keep insisting the irreligious position is by default, immoral, and if you continue to do that here then you are going to garner serious abuse. This argument is an intolerable ad hominem. What we know as factual is is that all humans live in groups and social morality serves the group and as a result it serves the individuals in the group. The idea morality is some magical potion scattered over us by an exo-universal deity is laughable. Morality is human. You can see the natural progression of pre-conventional morality in younger children, going on to conventional morality in slightly older kids and then progressing to post conventional morality in teens, facilitated by cultural activities like team sports, scouts, girl guides and all the rest of the social directives that encourage us to experience another's point of view and to sacrifice our individuality for the team. 

Looking around us we can see that morality is a central element of all human culture. But what you are spouting here is the assertion that universal morality, a giddy state where we constantly give ourselves up for each other, is somehow a thing we can attain in general life as we compete for resources. You are mistaken. No human and no humanly-conceived character, including biblical jesus, actually shows consistent universal morality. We can show empathetic morality - a local example on this site would be Brian37 - but not everyone achieves this elevated moral state. Personally, I think I reach it sporadically. If I practiced true moral universalism I would not get out of bed in the morning for fear of delaying some one else's commute to the office.

As for a conscience being illogical, I can only assume you are suggesting it serves the human purpose better to have no feelings for others but this is demonstrably stupid. Here we are, the most successful animal on the planet, and we have strong feelings for each other and act on them every day. Look at our societies, look at our cities, our support for our football teams, our local clubs, our involvement with our children's schools, with our neighbours. We even fight in each other's wars and die for each other.

As for morals being an 'illusion' that's silly, too. Morality is a real property that emerges from the human brain. Read that again. A property that emerges from the human brain. It's a human characteristic that's vital and central to what makes us human and helps us survive. But it's not proof for the existence of this assumption you keep insisting exists outside the universe but whom we can know nothing whatever about.

Teralek, you need to come down from your ivory tower and read some Jean Piaget. You also need to avoid using sentences that include statements like: "According to atheist rationality...gang rape is ok."

Regardless of whether there are absolute morals or not, people will do what they desire, what they prefer to do. I am not prevented from robbing, raping and killing by some invisible absolute moral wall; I don't do these things primarily because I don't want to. I don't like robbing, raping and killing. Those are my preferences. 

"You say you don't believe in a cosmological moral but you keep judging moral facts and thank your education..."

No. You're begging the question. He keeps expressing his moral preferences.

"without moral Egoism is really the best thing!" 

Without absolute morality, nothing is the best thing, by definition. There is no better or worse; that's what it means for there to be no absolute morality.

"a heavy consciousness is not logical."

You mean a heavy conscience? A lack of a heavy conscience isn't logical either. Preferences aren't logical, period; they're preferences.

As previously stated, we derive our preferences from a combination of our instincts and our culture. Because we are a social animal, our instincts are not limited to what is obviously beneficial for only the individual. Since humans live in groups, evolution not only selects for individuals that survive to reproduce, but also groups of humans. More precisely, evolution will select for instincts that benefit the in-group as long as they are not too detrimental to the individual. For example, we don't like murder, even if it is someone unrelated to us, because the loss of a member of the in-group weakens the group. On the other hand, we may sometimes cheer at death, such as in war, because we consider the deceased to be in an out-group that our group was competing with.

I recommend: http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_does_sugar_have_to_do_with_murder

 Also, answering your question, I've never seen (from the studies I've read) ANY atheist who remained so after an NDE.

This is not just some bogus thing you can easily discard. Even New scientist magazine is saying: "No medical explanation for near death experiences" 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1693-no-medical-explanation-for-near-death-experiences.html

Greyson claims that: "No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain."

As to time elapsed between cardiac arrest and loss of conscience... I'm trying to find the paper were I read it...

More on Pim van Lommel research: http://www.cinemind.com/atwater/VLommel.html

Pim van Lommel et al., argues, "With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one."

Here is a reply from Pim van Lommel (head researcher of the Lancet study) to skeptics: http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

The reply is to Michael Shermer,  a known skeptical.

LOL 

Yeah and loyalty is not very atheistic... and definitely not logical 

You're a Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist?? 

I'd love to know what you think! I Love philosophy!

Lol. Hahahaha, yeah, sort of. 

But, you did write some fairly inflammatory stuff. 

Oh, alright then. I'll lighten up a bit. 

Okay. Can you prove it?

Which wikipedia page did you get this from?

There are people who believe that what is morally right or wrong is determined by cultures, people, etc. That is not what I believe. What I believe is there is not and cannot be any objectivity regarding the rightness or wrongness of actions whatsoever. Iow, I do not claim that attitudes and/or conventions of people makes an action right or wrong; I claim that nothing makes an action right or wrong because morals are merely preference, like aesthetics.  

Well...there goes my promise of lightening up a bit.

Are you sure this is the same "Ok" that you were using before? What you said before was that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one," implying that the action is justified. All you mean now is that the action is not unreasonable. That is not the same; it is an equivocation.

Either way, it is an entirely inane statement. To the nihilist, no actions would be morally justified and no action would be morally unreasonable, period, because they hold that morality does not exist.

Strawman! Where in the definition of nihilism does it say that the nihilist necessarily opts for raping people for reproduction? Where in the definition of nihilism does it say that the nihilist necessarily cares about the survival of his species?

Then, all you're saying is that if you are a nihilist, you cannot criticize it using objective standards because there aren't any. Another completely obvious and inane statement. It doesn't make it any harder to "condemn;" to condemn something just means to have an unfavorable judgment of it.

No! Should you not like any flavors of ice cream more than other flavors because none of them are absolutely better flavors of ice cream?

To say that we shouldn't condemn the Nazis because we are not morally superior to them is a normative statement based on ideas like fairness and justice. It is a blatant contradiction. If there are no objective morals, then there is no should or shouldn't about anything. I have no obligation or "normative" reason to do anything.

No, they are not "ephemeral." They are not "things." They are not "forms." They do not exist as any entities or have any substance, period. They are abstractions of our preferences. Not every concept has to be some Platonic woo-woo.

Meaning, you believe it even though the evidence is insufficient, simply because it makes you feel good?

 Again to suggest  that moral require a "outside" standard is to suggest that moral are useless. If they are useful then they can be derived simply on their use within the human social system. 

Incorrect. We condemn the nazi's because their behavior is/was detrimental and less effective at maintaining and improving social cohesion of the species.

Atheists only necessarily agree with me one thing, the existence of God. I can disagree with them on everything else. His quote was stupid.

I do enjoy debate, but you also just think that because I disagreed with you on a billion different things. Seriously, have you noticed that you're the only person in this thread that I've disagreed with? It's not that "agreeing is not (my) thing." If you stay longer on this forum, you will discover that my views on philosophy and religion are essentially the same as most of the top posters and moderators here, including AtheistExtremist and most of the people that have posted in this thread. AE's username and avatar are more a satire of religious people who speak of atheist "extremists" than a statement of fact, and you played right into it with your confirmation bias.

That quote is a naked assertion. Do you have any evidence or arguments for moral objectivism beyond appeals to consequences and naked assertions?

If you assume objective morality, then they, in principle, permit immoralities. In practice, unless you know, for certain, what these objective morals are or they have real influence on our world, our preferences are all that matter.

If I assume moral subjectivism, then neither objectivism nor subjectivism would be immoral. However, subjectivism would a better system for clarifying and carrying out our preferences. Objectivism would confuse the situation and take up time by speaking of and debating moral absolutes.  

I don't know a single person on this forum that this comic would apply to.

Okay. So, are you simply saying that the syllogism above is a preference that the nihilist can hold?

That is also a naked assertion and begs the question by assuming that there is objective morality.

Well, almost, except I wouldn't say "should." If you want to condemn Nazis, you can. Or, if you don't want to, then don't. 

Great. Any evidence or arguments?

Okay. Naked assertion.

Yes, that's what the phrase means.

Okay. Another naked assertion.

Actually, the literal meaning of the sentence does not explicitly reveal that it is the subject who finds the chocolate delicious. That is merely assumed because no one who said that would be trying to start a philosophical debate by claiming that chocolate is absolutely delicious. On the other hand, if you claim that murder is wrong, most people assume that you mean murder is absolutely wrong in addition to you holding the preference that murder is wrong because most people hold to objective morality and assume that you do. 

Yes.

Well, this is a confused mess.

First of all, laws are made by people. They don't represent truth, only the opinions of the people that make the laws. If the legislature wanted to impose a law that chocolate is better than vanilla, then they could. It wouldn't even be close to the first time that people legislated aesthetics. Throughout history, there have been laws on music, art, dance, etc. In some cases, specific kinds of aesthetic expression have even been banned, particularly with corrupt dictators or any kind of government that grew too powerful and became oppressive, fascism, communism, etc.

Regardless of whether or not there are moral absolutes, we are motivated by our preferences, not absolutes. People don't legislate chocolate over vanilla because they don't care whether someone else eats chocolate or vanilla. They simply like to eat chocolate more than vanilla themselves. However, they do care about morally significant actions committed by others because, well, those are their preferences, those things matter to them. Remember, it's about the survival of the group. Instintively, the preference of a flavor of ice cream is inconsequential compared to actions that might harm the group.

Argumentum ad populum?

Humans want to think that morals are absolute because it was beneficial for the survival of the in-group; our instincts are still with us.  

Okay. Naked assertion. Naked assertion. Naked assertion. Naked assertion.

Then why do you use faith?

You both have good points. I need time to study the subject. Get back to you later...

Chill butterbattle  

EDIT: This is great! I'm glad I came here. I'm still in the process of reviewing my philosophical ethics. But I can already say that by putting my ideas to the test in here I was able to perceive it's weaknesses so I will reformulate. I'm still with moral realism though...

          BTW - Because of Eloise I look up a concept I was unaware of: Panentheism. Quite interesting... I hope it helps me to leave my Ignosticism.