Rapture Countdown ... join the after-party!

Starting with the bold sentence: In the first paragraph you said "under the assumption that he ...", and that's exactly what people do in discussions. Are you nuts? Of course I can compare Jesus to any real man even if I think that he probably did not exist or say/do the things attributed to him in the bible - I simply do so under the assumption that the bible is true.

BTW: Why was he a great man - because he preached to love your neighbor? Turn the other cheek is poor advice. The golden rule is not the pinnacle of morality, and it predates Christianity. Take no thought for tomorrow, leave your family, give away all your posessions? Doomsday lunacy. 

If you want a more in-depth analysis, here's Matt Dillahunty's deconstruction of the sermon on the mount:

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I see it as a thread that you should enter if you're prepared to set aside reason and logic No, that's the Shred Room. Well, other believers were more honest than you in previous threads and admitted that their theistic belief isn't reasonable, but requires a leap of faith. Maybe some day you'll be able to do that, too. If in the meantime you resort to knee-jerk reactions like denial and ridicule, that's something I can't help.

So I should do something because other people do it?  That's doesn't sound very logical of you.

You're calling me dishonest because I don't agree you are automatically correct just because you think you are?  Discussions simply don't work that way, I'm afraid.  You'll have to try a little harder.

"Knee-jerk reactions like denial and ridicule?"  What ridicule have I offered?  That apparently is your forte.

You credit yourself as a hero of "reason and logic."  Let's go back to this:

Mr ProgFreak wrote: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." You can discuss it 'till you're blue in the face - I'll still have my own opinion of how to interpret it, and I don't think it's unfair to say that many - if not most - biblical scolars would concur.

1. Argument from ignorance / Appeal to tradition (and the traditions are based largely on numerous other fallacies, such as the Etymological fallacy).
2. Hasty Generalization (For one, I don't think you've read many biblical scholars on the subject of Matthew 24. And of those I have read, very few reach any kind of real consensus).
3. Appeal to authority

At least three logical fallacies in one sentence! 

But since we're playing by these "rules," I don't think it's unfair to say that many- if not most- scientists believe in God.

There's no full open-minded, non-biased person in existence, I would say. 

I hope so. Some of us have sins to purge... 

It's one of those things that's difficult to identify the root cause of, especially in a society where religion either exists, or was dominant for a long period of its history, because it is impossible to completely issolate the meddling of religious teaching from the foundation of secular ethics - regardless of whatever theory anyone presents that removes any supernatural explanation, a religious person can always say "You got that from us, and we got it from our god, so your morality comes from our god whether you believe in it or not."

 

We domesticate animals through punishment and reward (carrot & stick) - that ability to learn by that system is innate in a domesticatable animal, and the animals that can be domesticated are pack or herd animals - those animals who survival is determined by their ability to live in a pack or herd. Man is one such animal, we are a social pack animal and we have that innate ability to learn by punishment and reward. That is how religion domesticates a society, that is how society domesticates an individual, the whole ethos of religion is reward for being good and punishment for being bad. The intuition is in being able to recognise a situation that can result in reward or punishment without having to empirically test that. The need to formalise common situations where reward & punishment are outcomes as a codex of rules is a means of asserting authority without having to test each situation every time for each member of the pack. Empathy comes into effect here - you only need one example for the rest of the pack to get the message.