And where do you hear about Jesus ?

I see, but even deeming someone as a "sociopath" is subjective and relative to one's self. I can agree that we are hardwired to some ideals, but cognitive thought is what matters here. Any actions has no quantifiable measurement of good or evil. Society just calls it the way the see it.

While I agree, their isn't an objective measure of right and wrong, their is a subjective measure of it, and you possess one most likely. So you call things "bad" or "good" right? If someone came up and smacked you, you'd feel that was a "bad" thing for them to do, and if you were explaining to that friend, they wouldn't stop you and say "wait a second Versace, how can you say that is bad? you only FEEL that is bad, that doesn't make it objectively bad" you'd think "wtf?!?" right? Like I said the question isn't "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is, "do YOU find that right or wrong? What do YOU feel about that? You would agree that you don't think murdering people is the right thing to do right? Or you FEEL that isn't the right thing to do, that it isn't a GOOD thing to do, or that, it isn't what someone SHOULD do.

Sure, but since my type of morality exists and is different from the person trying to convince me that means morality is subjective. I don't see why we call this a "moral goal". Something I agree to may not necessarily reflect my morality. In this instance sure, but this isn't the consistent case.

When I say moral goal, I mean, the basis your morality is on, what your morality, generally speaking, wants to accomplish, or wants to have accomplished. all encompassing moral goals for one person, can't be established without a little bit malleableness to it, however a general one can still exist. Mine would be, "maximizing pleasure, well-being, freedom equally and minimizing suffering, illness, unnecessary restrictions". The moral goal is non-cognitive, but HOW I accomplish that moral goal is cognitive. As a libertarian, your well politics differentiates a bit from morality, but is intertwined. If I asked you why you are a libertarian, and you explained to me why you are a libertarian, then I could argue that these so-and-so political beliefs work out better for what you want, and if you found my argument convincing, then you may change your mind and say "it's right" but what you want politically is technically non-cognitive at its core like morality.

This doesn't prove that good and evil truly exists.

You mean objectively? I wasn't arguing that it did.

Mere agreement upon terms doesn't turn a concept into truth in nature.

Nor was I saying that either, it's just you respond to my argument that "well it doesn't matter because right and wrong doesn't objectively exist" but... to me that is simply a means of sidestepping the argument. If we are having an argument about what is right or wrong, good and bad, what we should or shouldn't do even subjectively, we most likely have some common ground and thus you can explain to me, why you aren't convinced or why you don't feel that way, and eventually to it's core, we could end up at a place where I can't change your mind nor can you, mine. Here is the point I am trying to get at. With the psychopath thing, if the person cares about the well being of others, then said person will agree that we shouldn't go around killing other people, regardless of whether or not that is objectively true, we are arguing opinions. Or if the person was a psychopath, but wanted to higher their chances of survival, if I say, "if more people feel as though they shouldn't kill each other, then less people will kill each other" and convince the psychopath that he shouldn't kill other people. What you think is moral or immoral is simply what you think we should be, and shouldn't be doing, it is subjective, but that doesn't mean we can't argue it, we can't argue it, if we have no common ground. I am not arguing that morality objectively exists, just that we can still argue it.

Also without religion evil and good have no true ground.

Yes we do, evil and good have as much good and evil ground either way, religion doesn't make morality objective, you have to prove objective morality.

For example does 0 or infinity exist? Of course as a concept, but they are not quantifiable as any positive integer. -1 also doesn't exist, except for mathematical constructs. If humans disappear "good" and "evil" disappear. They have no true place, but numbers will (which is why I call numbers transcendent). There existence is in concept and in the construct of this realm. Good and evil are not. Right and wrong are not. Justice and injustice are not.

I agree, but this doesn't mean we can't call things moral or immoral, we just can't say morality itself is truth apt (btw I love the argument you just made here, I'm going to have to use it myself if that is cool with you). I'm not trying to prove morality is objective or cognitive, I am trying to prove that morality even as a subjective or non-cognitive thing, can still be argued, as long as the debaters, have enough common ground on right and wrong to debate it. If I say X is wrong for reason 1, and if reason 1 would equally apply to Y, then it would be inconsistent of my feelings and attitude to not feel the same way towards Y. If you think punching someone is wrong because it is harmful, but were doing something to someone that is harmful, but you didn't think it really was. If I convinced you it was harming someone, I would change your mind that something is wrong, even though right and wrong are subjective.

Somehow I really love debating and talking with you. This is great

Indeed, you give me a lot to expand upon, and make me out a lot of thought into my views on things, you are a challenging debater I must say.

Let me answer that question. I'm a Libertarian so that begs for me to be for "freedom". I value freedom highly and if religion is prevalent among the populace then I will have no problem with it's existence unless the doctrine of the religion states that it can aggress against another person, which violates the non-aggression axiom I hold so dearly to, so in that instance I would rather have people choose to have a religion then have them expelled and illegalized. After all it's not the religion, but the person that acts out the religion.

I would completely agree with you, but let me ask you this, referencing to my first response back to you. Do you think religion is harmful to society?

I hear people talking about Westboro Baptist Church and such things and claim it applies to almost all Christians it seems like. I also hear about how there is a mass persecution of Atheists by Christians when I live at the edge of the bible belt or so and Atheists are never bullied where I live at the school I go to. I actually think one of the Atheists at my school is pretty popular and almost doesn't effect your reputation. In my honest opinion it is just hype.

That is not why anti-theists think Christianity is harmful, it is not because they think all christians (or muslims, or jews, or buddhists, or etc) are the sames, it is because religion tries to claim to be the origin of morality, thus religion has a huge effect on morality because of such. Nobody ever tries to do immoral things to do immoral things, or because they are immoral things, people do however, do moral things, because they are moral things. You will never hear someone say "I did X, because it was the wrong thing to do" but you will hear people say "I did X, because it was the right thing to do". When one bases their morality on religion, they don't have to consider things like "what minimizes harm and maximizes well-being" in order to feel as though they are morally justified. However without religion, in order to feel right about what you are doing, you usually do need to use such considerations to justify yourself to being moral to yourself. The problem with religion (not just christianity) is when morality is based upon simply, what god approves of and dissaproves of, it can be used as kind of a free for all, or for whatever moral stance you want to take, because what god approves of or disapproves of can't be verified so, it is what has been taught to them via ancient texts, or they use that argument to hide their bigotry behind it. Of course you can use "what minimizes pain and maximizes well being" along with "what god approves of or disapproves of" but the second premise their doesn't at all help you morally, it was the former premise that lead you to a moral stance that leads to less harm. You have things like the crusades, preaching to other countries that condoms are wrong thus contributing the spreading of aids, fighting evolution in school, not allowing homosexuals to marry, etc. Harm of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) isn't overhyped, if anything underhyped because people are sensitive about their beliefs.

We find religion to be superstitious so when it effects morality across the globe... that's scary. Think of it this way, if majority of the world population believed that the way people should conduct themselves in society should be based upon bigfoot, or what bigfoot agrees or disagrees with... you'd find that disturbing wouldn't you?

Atheists are effected by it, I don't know of any atheists that got bullied in school for being an atheist, but we do get the bad end of the schtick around here in society.

We are one of the most distrusted minorities in America.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/

Some christian parents kick their kids out for being atheist

http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/what-do-i-do-when-ive-been-kicked-out-of-the-house-for-being-an-atheist/

a few states prohibit atheists from holding public office, and the ones that do... well come on, you don't see many atheists in politics, and we all know that it would be a BIG deal if we ever had an atheist for a president, after having a christian or catholic president for the millionth time in a row.

if you left out "as creationists claim" I would have been obliged to say yes, because there is a minor difference, simply being the difference in time, but as creationists seem to think or talk about it... no. Macro evolution is just Micro evolution over a longer period of time, that's it. To say Micro-evolution happens, but not Macro is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 4, it makes no sense, if something keeps changing, of course it is going to change into something else completely sooner or later.

I mostly agree, but I believe that this requires evil to be objective and in a modernist's point of view morality is subjective.

Not necessarily, it can be argued between two people if these said two people have common moral ground, which people are generally hardwired to. If I argue against a sociopath with no compassion, empathy, or care about sentient life, then I can't convince them that murder is wrong UNLESS I use the argument that if they allow their social environment to be ok with murder then they are heightening their own chance of murder, UNLESS the psychopath just doesn't care. If we have a psychopath, that doesn't care if it lives in a dangerous social environment, and doesn't care about the well being of others, then he/she would logically have no reason to care about the murder of another human being. The question isn't: "is it right or wrong objectively?" the question is: "Do you WANT that attitude to be socially accepted?" If you answer no, then you will agree that people shouldn't murder other people even though it is not truth apt, if you answer yes, then you won't care if people will murder other people. So while I do believe evil and good are subjective, non-cognitive things, that doesn't mean they don't matter... that depends on YOU. I am a moral expressivist, meaning when I claim something is moral or immoral I am simply venting my feelings, approval, or disapproval about something.

For example I believe that the income tax is "evil" because it's involuntary and is equatable with robbery and deprivation. However other will disagree and say it helps society sustain order and pay for things we may not be willing to contribute to that are necessary for our protection.

However, you are still willing to change your mind, if someone is willing to give you a good reason right? A reason that logically accomplishes the moral goal, and the moral goal being something you can agree on.

Then by that you would have to prove that evil actually exists (along with good as well) because I often argue that both have no true place in existence.

Not necessarily, all you would have to do is agree on whether or not, the pleasure and well being of humanity is more important than organized religion, if you disagree, then our moral frameworks are competing to shape the world, if you agree, then we are on the same side. Do you want a world where humanity's well being is better preserved, or where organized religion still exists, or at least not so prelavent? Now I am not saying I am for illegalizing religion, I hold the view religion is harmful to society, but ultimately freedom is important to me too, and if organized religion went away, personally I would only want to see that happen by humanities own choice, not by force. Or you could argue that religion doesn't deter morality aligned with "maximizing human pleasure and well being, and minimizing human suffering and illness"

.

My question to you is, which is more important?

Well by that logic, we should illegalize marriage completely, after all we don't want some guy and his long life female friend marrying simply to take advantage of the system... GOD HATES HETEROS AHHHHHH!!!!! ;)

You didn't answer my question. . .

So you believe the bible is the word of god, because the bible says so... I see you have mastered circular reasoning well young grasshopper...

I acknowledge that there are those that do good in the name of religion, but those also do bad in the name of religion. The thing is, nobody ever tries to justify themselves by rationalizing what they do as evil, but everyone at one point will justify themselves by rationalizing what they do is good. Nobody is ever evil for the sake of being evil, it is simply out of not caring to do good in the first place, or indifference, but people will do good, for the sake of it being good, for good's own sake. Nobody ever does something, BECAUSE they think it is the wrong thing to do. Nobody ever goes "I am going to do X, because X is wrong, and I want do wrong stuff!" The thing with religion, is a morality that is derived from religion is based upon what their god approves of and disapproves of, which is not a healthy means of morality for humanity. What is healthier or better for humanity morally, is what we use our reasoning to determine to be fair, good, beneficial, etc for humanity. By adding in the moral concern of "what god approves of and disapproves of, you are simply distorting morality not for the better but for the worse. You can still use reasoning to determine what would truly be better for humanity, and then say god approves of it, but in that case, the religion is not helping you out morally, you are just accommodating it to what works morally in society. There are also those whom, only, and ONLY go off of what they think god approves of and disapproves of and puts that above any other cognitive reasons as to why what they consider right and wrong, is right and wrong. For example, a theist is taught that god disapproves of homosexuality, so they oppose it, taking away the happiness of another person, because what they believe. I understand that there are people who try to do good in religion's name but the fact of the matter is, I don't see how religion improves morality, or I suppose I should say, leads morality where I think it should be. Nobody can verify what this god approves of or disapproves of, so religions effect on morality is a free for all, it can be used to argue for any moral stance, because nobody knows what god's moral disposition is. "what god approves of and disapproves of" allows an equal grounds for any moral stance, but more secular ways of being moral like "what maximizes human pleasure and well being, and what minimizes human pain, and suffering" has a narrower view of morality, and it accomplishes an actual goal, I can get on board with, that I consider more important. With religion, we have had the crusades, we have homophobia, we had racism, it is being used to mislead people from using protection in other countries and contributing to the spreading of STDs there, we have those trying to get our education system waste it's time with a passive aggressive means of indoctorinating people, and turning people away from science, terrorism is being justified in the name of religion, we have wars in the name of religion. bad and good has been done in the name of religion, but all good done in the name of religion is more justified by its secular reasoning then religious reasoning, and the bad is only justified by religious reasoning, if we took away religion, I honestly think we would have less problems. I don't think anyone who is religious is bad, there are a lot of good religious people, but religion does corrupt some, and those who aren't would still be equally good without religion.

How much time is in eternity?

Infinite, but how do we know if eternity is possible?

That is just another measurement. Whatever it is, whenever it is, it is in the now.

Actually, our consciousness experiences things a couple milliseconds before it actually happens... So it is not in the now, it is in the NOW of the conscious experience, but what our consciousness experiences is not.

If the past exists, go ahead and go there. Tell me where it is.

You aren't making any sense, the past isn't anywhere it's before now... To say time doesn't exist or is an illusion, (and I mean time, beyond the word time) is to say the past never happened... Time is a measurement, so is distance, does distance not exist? To say "where is time" is not understanding what time really is, it's just the before, now, and after, nothing less, nothing more. Before, now, and after exist right? I mean, there was a before, I posted this argument right? There was a before, you joining CD right? The before exists... time exists, time itself is not an empty concept, maybe hard to wrap your mind around as other than a concept because you don't see it physically or anything, but it obviously exists...

Much of what we know about black holes is theoretical, but I would imagine that it has something to do with us not being able to have a reference for measuring time in a black hole.

It's not just about black wholes, time is slower or faster out in space (I can't remember which at the moment) but time is something that can be effected by other forces... Time is a measurement, but it is a measurement of something very real

And what kind of evidence would that be?

It doesn't matter, as long as the evidence is sufficient.

Do you need a reason why you are alive, or is it satisfying enough that you just are? Do you need a reason why someone loves you, or is it enough that they just do? Right now inside your skull is a chunk of meat, that through chemical reactions has come alive. It has given you the ability to see, smell, taste, feel and hear. Do you need to know why? Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?

No, because I have sufficient reason to believe in those things... With someone loving me, and if I ask "why do you love me?" and they don't have an answer that might be concerning, although love is a subjective thing, your disposition towards someone is subjective.

Are you truly satisfied with the scientific argument which as of now is, just because?

But it's not just because in the same aspect of god, they give me reasons to think certain things. Why I am alive... well the evidence that I am alive is self evident, thus I don't believe I am alive just because... If someone loves me, and I know they genuinely love me, I don't need a reason as to why they love me, if I have a reason to believe it, then it's not "just because" in the same aspect of god. The thing is, I am not going to think something is true, just because, I am ok with not having answers, but I am not going to hold a belief... just because...

At the core, most beliefs are just because.

I see what you are doing here, but "just because" the way you are using it, is now how I meant it. I need a reason to think this or that, not just choose what I want to think.

Science peels the layers away and discovers those strange things we gave names to. Names are illusions as well. Are you your name? Are calling atoms, atoms, or energy, energy really helping us understand those things more? At the core they are a mystery. We can come up with theories, but how will we ever know what they truly are or why they are here?

Yeah, sure, but it's not the names that I care about, I acknowledge those names as... well arbitrary means of communicating, what I am interested is in what those words have in content.

I personally believe that we have to look within ourselves to find answers. I believe that is our purpose... To know who we truly are, but it is something that can only be accomplished spiritually. To people who aren't spiritual, that just sounds crazy, so they will always be living a mystery. This life is YOU though. Everything you perceive is within you. If you want to see what makes a clock tick, you look inside. You don't look all around it, trying to find evidence of a maker. The fact that it exists is evidence enough... But you are not looking for IF it ticks, you are looking for WHY it ticks... And that reason is found in the clock itself.

Answers to how we tick? I agree, that is why psychology this semester is fascinating ;P

It is actually. Modern science is not the same as primitive speculation.

The Guadalupe is too mysterious to even allow any scientist to make a valid hypothesis about it.

How do you know thier isn't a valid hypothesis on it? Even if there wasn't perhaps when more knowledge accumulates, then we will be able to form a hypothesis.

It is a researched article that provides enough references to suit your every needs.

Does it cite the research, give links to the studies and what not on the painting?

It all matches the requirements that every single atheist demands in a miracle. You know that any further arguments will not last. Why struggle to keep up?

What is your definition of a miracle? something incredible happening, that seems highly unlikely and is nice. I think those miracles happen, I just don't think it is evidence of a god. Something that was caused by a god? Well I need a reason to conclude that, or evidence.

Research mate.

Ive made alot of research in Guadalupe. All those who claim to debunk it are limited to 2. They condemn the science as flawed or the scientists as bribed.

If you want to convince me of these things, then show me your research.

Does it? We are born and we do die, but if we are eternal, are those not just merely cycles?

Yes, cycles that take up time...

What exists is now. Not five minutes ago, not five minutes from now. Only now, and now is what has always existed.

Actually, our brains take up time in order to digest information so to speak, we don't really live in the now, we technically live in the past, by about a couple milliseconds I think. In any case, how can now exist or be the way it is, if the past doesn't. Time is very real, in fact, time can be effected by the pull of gravity, black holes fuck with time itself.

I already gave you one

That's not research, that is an article... there is a difference, it didn't give me a study, or a reference to an experiment. Regardless though, again, even if it was true, it would mean nothing for you. How does it follow that a painting that had been well preserved for a long time, to a point where we don't understand how lead to the conclusion that their is a god.

Notice how NASA tested the Guadalupe but they never wrote the reports on their homepage. But when asked for its credibility, they would rather stay quiet.

Alot of the scientists who failed in explaining the Guadalupe has converted. And all of them were rejected in the scientific community. And why is that?

Where did you get this from?

In order for something to appear as if from divine origin, should it be totally exempt from scientific observation?

No there should be a reasoning, or evidence to how it was divine, or of god. I need a reason to think it was, not just think it, just because. That's my problem with spirituality and religion, it seems the beliefs are based on just because, and it never gets around as to why people believe them, or when it does, it is usually for crappy reasons.

How many layers do we need to get through to conclude that it is not related to God?

We don't need to go through layers, if science can't extract any evidence that something is related to a god, then we need a reasoning, or logic, or a reason to think that it is related to god, not just because.

So you are claiming that the research done is wrong?

I am saying that not understanding something scientifically, does not mean that it was supernatural... We didn't have a scientific understanding of lighting, but it wasn't supernatural at the time.

So you recognize the research as valid but you still deny the existence of God?

I don't know if the research on it was valid, you didn't provide me any research to investigate. However even if what your article claimed was true, a painting that survived something that we don't understand how it did, I don't see how that logically follows that their is a supreme being whom caused the universe...

One undebunkable proof is enough to change everything, apparently.

Could you elaborate? I get the feeling, you are not understanding what I am telling you.

Time is an illusion anyways. We just put a measurement to the earth's rotations. We do age, but so do leaves. It's just natural.

By that logic, everything is an illusion. Time is a concept to understand something very real (just as evolution is a concept to understand something very real we just put measurements on change over time, or the psyche is a concept to understand something very real, we put measures to different qualities of the mind). There is a before, present, and after, that does exist. The beggining of time, would be the point where before can't take place.88So, I would think that God has always existed and his form is not anything like ours. Actually, the Bible says that he is without form, much like energy... And as we know, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Why do people assume that he would have to go through the same natural laws as his creations?

Anything you claim to be the first cause, you must explain how that thing doesn't follow natural laws in order to be justified. If a being can exist to have created the universe, why not something simpler, like something inanimate?

Anything that cannot be explained through science is considered supernatural. Simple

No it's not, science is fallible, science doesn't know everything because science is a means of investigating things. We couldn't explain a lot of things via science, for a long time. (like lightning, the sun, the biodiversity of life, how people behaved, etc) doesn't mean those things are supernatural. If everything that hasn't been understood yet, via science is supernatural, then the supernatural is calculated to fade away.

Preservation is easy. The painting itself is impossible.

Or if, what is claiming is true, then we simply don't understand how the painting was preserved, not that it was impossible.

I can see that you did not raise any argument about the research done and the credibility of the scientists. Gee, I wonder why

Because it doesn't matter whether or not what is being claimed it true, I would figure you could use common sense to figure that out.

Because if fairies and spirits exist, then so does the rest of the paranormal world. And that includes God.

How would one supernatural claim being true, prove every supernatural claim? It doesn't follow.

How can you conclude that whatever this first cause is, is a being?

The thing I am pointing out here, is what would make this being so special? If there was no time prior to the universe, how could said being exist long enough to have created the universe.

You did not read the research, have you?

I read the article if that is what you are asking.

A persons inability to ask questions is his own fault.

The answer is readily available. You just have to ask, it's that simple.

Why didn't they put that knowledge out there to begin with? It obviously was something, that could make what they are saying questionable, thus it's of course going to seem dishonest, when they don't acknowledge it in public writing.

If its just age, i wouldn't find a problem in your argument. But the thing is, the test results show that not only was the painting impossible to be done by human hands, but also practically inexplainable due to how intricate it is, to the point that not even modern technology can imitate it.

And how does it follow a god exists from this? Why not fairies? why not spirits?