NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I also don't see why every time any question of beliefs comes up people start flaming. Assuming just because of some religious label that I am a hateful bigot is just as much an act of prejudice as racial stereotyping.
As you say, I do not force anything on anyone; can our detractors say the same?

I have also read many of these threads.... I have also noticed that many (not all) are started with " We should ban ______" because it is wrong (i paraphrase i can provide examples on request). These threads (for example a ban on homosexuality) are attempts to make the UN adopt a policy to restrict the feedoms of its members' citizens. These restrictions are based on religious beleifs. These are not facts. Such an attack on our rights and freedoms are bound to ilicit a strong responce and this is the thinly vailed aim of those who start these threads. If you continue to argue on the basis of religion and its teachings then you have to be prepaired of these to be questioned and examined. (for example in abortion 1 or 2 i cant recall the soul was used to define life, on conception a soul is created/ given by god)

It is the crusading element of cristianity that causes many of the heated responces that you have experanced. There may be some, however I would not attempt to persuade you to give up your religious beliefs and i am happy for you to conduct your life in any way you see fit in accordance with these beleifs.

However that is exactly what many on these treads propose we (Those who are convinced that god does not exsist) do. We are asked to give up the belifs about rights issues that have been largly accepted and thorghly debated throughout the history of our nations and to limit our behaviour because of someone else's beliefs. I thank you that if you could prove the exsistance of god you would allow me my own decision as to weither i accept it. You are happy if my beleif system is not that of yours as long as you can control my behaiour to fit it.

The religious are wishing to ban, to exclude, to stop. We are inclusive, our socity can incorporate those with religious beleifs they are free to act how they wish. However the same is not true.

My personal beleif is that there is no God and that much of religion is dogma and much of the teachings simply reflect the social norms of the time they were written. The religious right in the USA are not aided by those who take the litural interpertation of the bible on such issues as the age of the planet (it is not 6,000 yrs old) Evey time you allow such people to use the bible as there justification it weaken your posistion on every other issue (in the eyes on myself and many others). R

It would be easy for me to say that God came to me last nite and told me that he agrees with abortion, loves homosexuality and thinks suicide is cool... bla bla bla. I could write a book about it Bible II " he's back" and then argue every posistion based on that. It would be as valid as your religion or any other. We could even have a holy war to sort it out......

The topic of a personal belief system should be strickly verboten in a forum that affects the public. Spirituality is a deeply personal experience and has as little place in a world forum as a delegate mentioning he has hemmoroids the size of corn nuts, or that he is as happy as a puppy with 2 peters. Who cares?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

If you don't want your religion critized, don't use religion as an argument, simple enough?

If you say that homosexuality or abortion should be banned because it is morally wrong, and you happen to be a christian, then the only possible rebuttal a person could give to that is to discredit the validity of the christian religion. And this is the UN forum, people can say that your religion is wrong all they want, if you don't like it you can leave.

i agree Vivelo, although i do not share your beleifs i would argue with you based on the points you made not just try to rubish your religion.

However the problem comes from both sides: I have seen what you describe " your god doesnt exsist so f**k off" comments but there are an equal ammount conversly of " well its f**king wrong, natural law... you are all murders who will burn in hell" comments.

I think most people on this thread would accept that this is not a sensable way to debate, and as such are not resposable for the above comments. However it is, I think enevitable, that when discussing the sort of emotive issues we are concerned with here that as there are a lack of objective "Facts" (that I would define as proven points of an arguement both sides do not contest) then it will come down to personal beleifs. (there are alot of questionable and non-sourced statistics banded around on both sides.)

Also i see that many of the non-religious feel that it is easyer for them to take a short cut in a debate (as they see it) not argueing your points but to attemt to destroy the pilar that is underpining them.

I personaly (or as a nation) would be happy debate in a way that is agreable to everyone, but i think that it is impossible to remove beleif from that debate. I personaly can attack science and its underpining philosophical basis, the nature of truth etc how ever it is still what i choose to belive. In the same way you must conceade some of the religious teaching cannot be lituraly true however that is your beleif system.

Just to take you up on one point.

"However, my main gripe in this thread was not the religious, but the nonreligious. I am talking about those who respond to every arguement against their personal beliefs, regardless of ours being mentioned, by attacking God about how He doesn't exist."


I think you have opened the Grip flood gates for both sides! I have not read a thread concerned were the religious beleifs of the author have not been perviously stated, or at least aluded to.. if you mentioned soul in abortion this implys a god. Or natural law in the case of homosexuality. As i've said it is impossible to remove beleif from the debate, but emotive language can be removed.

What i would like to see is an attemt, on both sides, to reach a consensus on policy, not beleif. However arogant I am i would not expect to change your beleif system with the power of my argument nor you mine. I would attempt to show why a suggested change of policy is unacceptable to me in its present form. Maybe a compromise, on policy, can be reached maybe not but then a vote can take place. however if a commen goal is in mind then maybe we can remove the hatered and bile from both sides.


Englund
T the Hope of Rational determinisum

If you hear "religious" and automomatically think "religious right", you are filled with prejudice and irrational hate.


-an old spokesman for the Religious Left

Someone once told Winston Churchill that there were three things one shouldn't discuss in polite conversation: politics, religion, and sex.

Churchill replied: "What else is there?"

actually religion is a quite valid grounds to mock someone on if he uses religion, and only his religion to back up his arguement.

If someone says "in the bible its says..." or "my religion teaches me that..."

You have left yourself wideopen to being mocked. If, however, you never mention your religion, or use it to defend your arguement then insulting your religion is baseless and does not belong in the arguement.

The trick? never mention your religion, never allude to its scriptures, never use it as your arguement. And your religion won't be mocked. If you use your religion as your ENTIRE arguement, then your arguement (religion) can be mocked, insulted, cruelly violated, etc. The typical rules of a debate still applying (make good arguements as to why the religion is false and erroneus in the debate, just saying the diety doesn't exist doesn't cut it)

I appoligise to the religious Left. I have not seen their opions posted ( i am however new to the game). My reason for the genriliseation was due to the posts i have read in other threads not because of hatred.

I am interested in the opinions from the religious left on some of the emotive issues described in the previous posts.

Well said! Let those atheists and secularists keep their worthless contributions out of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria!

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

Well said! Let those atheists and secularists keep their worthless contributions out of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria!

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The mosaic murals of the Pantocrator in Turkey and Syria are among the most impressive ancient artworks in the world.

Well said! Let those atheists and secularists keep their worthless contributions out of the Holy Empire of Pantocratoria!

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

The mosaic murals of the Pantocrator in Turkey and Syria are among the most impressive ancient artworks in the world.

That's because they were built by our ancestors before the Turks came along and wiped Byzantium off the face the planet, but we appreciate and agree with the sentiment.

ANDREUS I IMP. PANTOCRATORIA

OOC Explanation: My nation is supposedly founded by Byzantines who fled the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks. 8)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The trick? never mention your religion, never allude to its scriptures, never use it as your arguement. And your religion won't be mocked. If you use your religion as your ENTIRE arguement, then your arguement (religion) can be mocked, insulted, cruelly violated, etc. The typical rules of a debate still applying (make good arguements as to why the religion is false and erroneus in the debate, just saying the diety doesn't exist doesn't cut it)

Agreed on the part about using the religion as your entire argument. But think this... would you not agree that a scientists religion is often science? Or that an athiests religion becomes athiesm? Thus if they then air their views based on irrational presuppositions of such, should they then not be derided?

I'm exaggerating for purposes of making a point. But do you understand where I'm coming from? Everyone's root presuppositions come from what their religon taught them [whether that religion be something god, God or man centered]

Agreed on the part about using the religion as your entire argument. But think this... would you not agree that a scientists religion is often science? Or that an athiests religion becomes athiesm? Thus if they then air their views based on irrational presuppositions of such, should they then not be derided?

I'm exaggerating for purposes of making a point. But do you understand where I'm coming from? Everyone's root presuppositions come from what their religon taught them [whether that religion be something god, God or man centered]

A few thoughts:
Yes i understand your point, but science is based on objective fact while religion is based on faith. Although i grant you science can be wrong, at least it evolves and tries to correct itself. I'd rather be half right than completely wrong.

I am not 100% sure on this, but natural law is not a religious belief, it is how things were meant to be or seem meant to be. Many religions just happen to base their beliefs and laws/commandments on it.

I disagree. By refering to a natural law as you define it a) "How thing were ment to be" implies there is some sort of plan to be followed and some one/thing had to have created that plan ie a God. b) "seem ment to be" is only your opion on how you see the world which is based on your beleifs (religious or otherwise). A well as the fact that just because something is like it is now does not mean it always has to be like that or that is any way preferable to any other situation.

Natural law as i understand it is based on religion and is often used in arguments to justify a religious posistion. "homosexuality is not natural" is a favorate however as i see it it is. So much as it occours widely in nature in many species (i dont want to debate homosexuality here this is just an example). I think the term natural laws is unhelpful and cannot be used to justify a posistion as it is wholey based on your beleifs and as such cannot be used to justify them.