Troianii

I won't pull out any comments to directly respond to, but in the closed thread comments have been made that either directly assert or indirectly imply that an opinion linked to a religious view cannot be linked to reason or have reason and logic behind it.

I want to say that, while I am deeply religious, that shouldn't come into a debate as a card to play against me, and if anyone in the future tries to then shame on you. My views are very much in allignment with my faith, as I don't consider myself above it, but my arguments will always have reason and logic that can stand independent of religion so please, concentrate on the points and if you wish to attack my faith in an attempt to discredit the arguments that can and do stand alone, then go ahead. I will simply dismiss it as your inability to argue the actual points, and it will be as simple as that.

presluc

I'm down with that, however although defending ones faith or beleifs one should never have to do sometimes you do.
We as human beings should respect each others faith at least, but that's not always the case.
As for me I have faith in God no body can take that away and if I am critisised I will defend my faith through words and if attacked anything else if needed.
I do not however pressure anyone to beleive the same way I do, and will respect any human beings faith as long as it is for good.

Ygorl

Exactly.

If you're religious at all the attempt to dismiss you as a "religious right winger" is always used.

Used out of laziness and the inability to create any coherent arguments against what you've said.

It's funny really. I'm not even religious but this tactic is used against ME consistently.

Why ?

Because its the only way "out" for them I guess ?

Don't argue or discuss the points, just dismiss it ALL as right winger religious "zealotry" and go on about our merry, BLIND way.

That shit irrigates me.. can ya TELL ? LOL

Brother Oz

Why not? You should be able to defend your beleifs in argument, otherwise they must be wrong. People shouldn't believe things that aren't true.

As to on the subject of attacking a posters religion, I think this is fine if that is their justification.
For example, if you say "Homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural" then people should not be attacking your religious beliefs.
If you say "Homosexuality is bad because this Bible verse says so" then it is quite reasonable to discuss whether the Bible is reliable.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Scribbler1

I wouldn't say "always", and in my experience that term is used for religious right-wingers and rarely used by intelligent people to define religious people in general.
For example, my neighbor could be called DEEPLY religious, and he IS a Republican. However, he is one of the most level-headed people I know. In his view, he isn't happy with the way this country is run and he doesn't want to link God with any of this shit.

Personally, I use the term when I hear politicians invoke the name of God to either support their political positions or to attack those who oppose them.

There IS a reason to keep church and state apart.

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Izzibeth

You should expect to defend your beliefs if you are going to try to use them to prevent other people from having certain freedoms. Especially if your beliefs are religiously-based. Especially in this country.
This does not mean that people should bash your beliefs. But challenging and bashing are two different things.

__________________

Scribbler1

Absolutely. I looked at the rules and they seem not to define the difference.

For example, if I said I think the Catholic Church is a cult, and give an example to support my position and I offend a catholic on the board, have I violated any rules?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Brother Oz

I think we've got to accept that people will be offended. I think the difference is whether you are intentionally offending other posters for the sake of it, or if it is a byproduct of reasoned argument.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

george.d

Of course people will be offended by any negative reference to their belief system, intentional or as a byproduct of reasoned argument, when that belief is based solely on personal faith. With regard to dogmatic based belief systems, Christianity, Muslim or such, almost any argument pertaining to adherence to science as a discussion base is going to be a direct confrontation with creationism. In theory no scientific explanation regarding creation can be accepted by a faith based believer without compromising much of that faith's dogma, inevitably leading to circular argumentation, believer/non-believer.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

Troianii

Of course, you continue to make uneducated attacks. Do some research. If all logic and science went against creationism (if that's all that you're looking at), then you had ought to know that the majority of scientists beleive in Creationism or Intelligent Design.