Sony pulls a "Jesus ad"...

[Gabriel013]

I think Ryan may be saying that religion as an idea/concept and the morality issues raised by it are what have guided society to it's current moral standing. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the religion origins are fact. If however I'm wrong Ryan then just ignore me (or elaborate a lil further).


I see that back in the day, people were good citizens because that was what God wanted and now that moral outlook has been fixed in the heart of man's laws even without the religious teachings to back it up. I think however that we are underestimating how many people are following the current laws not out of religious belief or out of respect for the latest laws of our current society but simply because in their own minds they think it is either a right or wrong thing to do.

I don't care that the law (God and man) says it's wrong to kill. I simply don't kill because within myself I don't think I should do it. It's simply because I don't want to cause suffering to someone else.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by svosen



Having said all that: please, please, please don't take this as an attack or as being mean-spirited. I am TRULY interested in debating the logic of this topic.

If you really want to debate this LOGICALLY, Svosen, then stop using the False Dilemma Logical Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...e-dilemma.html) as the basis for your argument. You're giving me a choice between two stances wholly incompatible with my statements thus far, and acting as if those are the only two possible views one can hold.

It's transparent, absurd, and highly illogical, which is rather ironic given that you're the one going around complaining about the lack of logic in other people's views.

That being said, the reality here is that we're not talking about relative truth, we're talking about an issue of faith. Matters of God and religion are matters not of truth, but of faith. You have no proof God exists, and I have no proof he does not. You choose to believe he exists, I choose to believe he doesn't. Neither of us can have our opinions validated short of Jesus Christ himself coming down to earth.

I'm really not going to get into this. You can dress up your argument nine ways from Sunday, but in the end you're simply trying to force a false dilemma on anyone who doesn't believe what you do, and I have no interest in arguing against a logical fallacy. I spent far too many years doing just that at Gamespot's political board, and it became quite clear that doing such is absolutely futile.

[svosen]

Thank you for the link on the definition of "False Dilemma." I'm not a student of such things, so it's good information.

After reviewing my posts, I do not see how this applies to what I've said.

I would ask that you not put words in my mouth or attribute actions to me that I did not take.

I am not "trying to force" anything on anyone. I'm trying to discuss something. I really don't see how I can be more clear about that.

You're continuing to miss the point in this thread. Please read carefully: THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHRISTIAN VS. NON-CHRISTIAN. I am not saying that you have to believe in God. I'm not saying you're bad for NOT believing in God.

Here's what I AM saying:

You are believing in a set of moral values set forth as main tenants of a faith that just happens to be Judeo-Christianity. That is wholly your choice, and THAT is why I'm discussing Christianity in this thread. If you had stated instead that your moral beliefs came from Obie-Wan Kanobe, then I'd be talking about "The Force" (well, probably not, since I don't know anything about that "religion.") The only reason I'm discussing this now is because you yourself stated God as being the ultimate source of your definition of "morality."

Hopefully we're clear on that now.

I still fail to see the logic in believing only one portion of a religion and throwing the rest out. I simply do not understand how someone would come to that conclusion. As I stated before - clearly, I thought - I don't understand why you choose to believe a small part of "religion X" and throw out the rest.

I never said you COULDN'T do that, I just don't understand why you DID.

Perhaps we've reached a stalemate. I really don't believe the definition of "false dilemma" provided in the link you posted applies to my argument at all. And while I truly hope my argument is transparent (why, after all, would I want to veil my message??), I don't believe it's negatively transparent, as you are suggesting. Further, I don't see it as absurd in the least, and I clearly don't find it illogical.

As an example of an ACTUAL false dilema:

Matters of God and religion are matters not of truth, but of faith.

How can you seriously not categorize that as an endorsement of relative truth?? God exists: true or false. One answer is correct, the other is incorrect. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter WHICH answer is correct, only that ONE OF THEM IS. They can not possibly both be true or both be false. To think otherwise is cognative relativism (I'm not talking about "moral" relativsm here; this is a discussion of knowledge rather than of values).

Discussion of Relativism

[Ryan H.]

Svosen, I never said morality comes from God, I said morality comes from religion.

And yes, God either exists or doesn't, but since it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove, it's a matter of faith, not truth or logic.

End of debate for me.

[svosen]

I never said morality comes from God, I said morality comes from religion.

True enough. My mistake.

And yes, God either exists or doesn't, but since it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove, it's a matter of faith, not truth or logic.

That's malarky.

Just because we can't prove something as being true or false does not preclude it from the category of logic and place it in the category of faith.

Example: 100 years ago, it was impossible to prove what was going on in the middle of an atom. Some people thought there were electrons and protons and neutrons, but it couldn't be proved at that time. So the existance of those particles had to be a matter of faith rather than one of truth and logic?

And I'm still curious to know why you believe in the morality of the worlds' religions without believing the religions themselves.

As I've stated before, I'm not saying you have to believe in both or neither, I'm only curious as to why you believe in only one or the other.

I'm sorry you're not willing to discuss this. As of yet, I really don't think you've addressed the issue, with the exception of saying morality has been intigrated into culture from religion. Which might explain why you believed in the "cultural morality" if you weren't aware of the actual source. But since you are aware of the actual source, the explanation is unclear to me.

If you don't want to explain, that's fine. It's your choice. But I'm disappointed to not know why you believe as you do, given your knowledge of the source of the definition of morality used in our society.

[Ryan H.]

Religion is man made.

Morality is man made.

That the two happen to be intertwined is coincidence. Were it not for religion, another cultural or sociological tool would have been used to institute morality.

I don't believe that God came down and wrote on tablets and created moral law. I believe men created moral law and then created God as its enforcer.

And 100 years ago, the theory of the atom was just that- theory. You believed or you didn't, but you couldn't prove it. Thus, at THAT POINT IN TIME, it was a matter of faith.

At THIS POINT IN TIME, this existence of God is a matter of faith, it's a theory with no scientific backing.

I'm not responding to anymore baited replies.

[svosen]

Thanks for answering; I understand your position on religion and morality now.

It's not really fair to call it "baiting," though. I'm just trying to have a discussion. Like I said, it's your choice to answer or not.

As for the other topic at hand (ie - God either exists or not being a matter of logic as opposed to one of faith):

The theory of the atom was a matter of faith in that point in time (100 years ago).

Which has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that it was either right or wrong, independent of the dimension of time.

Just because something is not able to be proved in the present, it is not a foregone conclusion that it won't ever be proven.

The concept of truth is inescapable; every concept or idea is either true or it is not. Time has nothing to do with it. Saying that we won't know unless "event X" happens, which may well be some point nearing infinity from now, has no impact of the truth of the matter.

[Ryan H.]

Yeah, the 'bait' comment wasn't called for, I was a bit upset. My bad.

And I know that God either exists or doesn't, one belief must be right, and one must be wrong. I think I've acknowledged that, Svosen. My point is that it's foolish to say it's true or not, since at this point in time we can't know. Your belief in God is based on faith, it is not based on proof.

[Gabriel013]

I get Ryans POV here.

The Earth is round. That is the truth as it has been proven.

1000 years ago the world was still round but as there was no proof of the matter, it was faith and not truth when individuals made the statement that the Earth was round.

[svosen]

Originally posted by Ryan H.
...at this point in time we can't know. Your belief in God is based on faith, it is not based on proof.

I agree with that 100%

My belief is based on faith.

But my belief (and yours, for that matter) has zero bearing on the truth of the matter.

As I've said in the past (not in this thread), I may well end up being wrong about my belief in God & Jesus. As you've said, I have no concrete proof to show anyone why I believe as I do.

But it doesn't change the fact that I'm either right or I'm wrong.

Which isn't to say that I don't see where you guys are coming from, because I do. I just think you're limiting yourselves by choosing to consider only the present point in time. As noted above, time doesn't ultimately have a bearing on reality. It only has a bearing on our perception of reality.