What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[BashfulAnthony]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!  You made a daft comment  -  admit it?

What on Earth is the point of this?  You are blatantly in the wrong here and it's completely obvious to anybody who can read.  Why don't you pretend you have some balls and simply admit t you made a mistake?  "So many" is not the same as "all".  Many of us know that.

Semantics!  He made a statement which it is impossible to justify. Don't say you are just as blinkered!

No.  You made a statement that is impossible to justify when you conflated "so many" with "all". Now you are on the attack because you know you were wrong, but you're not big enough to admit it.

What a quite ludicrous attempt to justify Shaker's sloppy post. It matters not how many, but the fact that he purports to know of any number to back up what he says is absurd.  When we were discussing teaching a short while back, he alleged he knew "many, many, many teachers."  When challenged he admitted to two!    If I, or any theist on here makes a claim, or assertion, we are asked for evidence  (eh, ippy?)  It happens every day.  So I, in turn,  challenge Shaker for the evidence for what he says?  It was just an off-the-cuff comment, made without thought or any kind or attempt to justify it.   So it was meaningless  -  but he won't admit to it.. To try and twist it to make me appear to be wrong is disingenuous in the extreme.  He made the post, not I.   That is what it is all about.

[jeremyp]

No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.

Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.

Where's the evidence then?

[Shaker]

No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.

Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.

Where's the evidence then?

Hmmm ... I was wondering that too.

[BashfulAnthony]

No evidence that I could find that either organisation conflates secularism with atheism or anti-theism.

Don't be so stupid.....what a piss take.

This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads:  "What is the problem..."   and "Girls in lab,"  and had none.  As I pointed out:  you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you

Where's the evidence then?

Hmmm ... I was wondering that too.

 This evening I have made a request for evidence from both you and jeremyp, on different threads:  "What is the problem..."   and "Girls in lab,"  and had none.  As I pointed out:  you demand evidence for theist comments, but appear not to think that injunction also applies to you

[Shaker]

Notwithstanding the blatant misrepresentation of my position in your #5 (may have been accidental at first; deliberately and rather slimily and petulantly evaded when pointed out to you) I answered this point twice, in #8 and #10.

[BashfulAnthony]

Notwithstanding the blatant misrepresentation of my position in your #5 (may have been accidental at first; deliberately and rather slimily and petulantly evaded when pointed out to you) I answered this point twice, in #8 and #10.

No misrepresentation at all.  You said, "my experience of many theists really not knowing what secularism actually means."  What evidence have you to substantiate that what you said is nothing but an idle opinion?  How many theists are you talking about:  one, five, fifty?  There are millions; so for your comment to have any validity you would need to know a great many.

[Shaker]

I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read (and read rather better than you seem to be able to at that).

Misrepresentation, by the way, is claiming that I had said "all theists" when I had said no such thing.

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read (and read rather better than you seem to be able to at that).

Your squirming attempt to distance yourself from your ridiculous comment, cuts no ice.  And resorting to your usual denigration of peoples' ability, does you no favours.   So "know of,"  now becomes, "I don't have to "know" a single one, only be able to read." What a pathetic and immature inability to admit an error.

[Shaker]

The error was all yours, as #5 and #7 confirm. That this is freely available for all to see makes it all the more contemptible that you are still trying to duck the issue and wasting time when we could have been discussing secularism, but so be it. It's not as though you would have had anything of any merit or relevance to offer anyway.

[BashfulAnthony]

The error was all yours, as #5 and #7 confirm.

You made the post, you fool. It's up to you to substantiate it!  You are just intellectually dishonest!

[Shaker]

You made the post, you fool.

Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?

[BashfulAnthony]

You made the post, you fool.

Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?

"There is a righteous anger, which is not sinful."

[Shaker]

I'm sure it's Matthew 5:22 ...

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm sure it's Matthew 5:22 ...

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.  My anger is righteous.  Jesus himself showed righteous anger:  "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."  -  Mark, 3:5

However, Jesus does condemn hypocrites:  "Jesus addressed the other form of hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).

[Shaker]

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.

Fancy the Bible saying inconsistent and contradictory things!

My anger is righteous.

I'd have had a score on it being "the right kind"

Just as Jesus showed righteous anger:  "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."  -  Mark, 3:5

Would have gone down a treat on Jackanory.

[BashfulAnthony]

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.

Fancy the Bible saying inconsistent and contradictory things!

My anger is righteous.

I'd have had a score on it being "the right kind"

Just as Jesus showed righteous anger:  "He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."  -  Mark, 3:5

Would have gone down a treat on Jackanory.

There is nothing at all contradictory about stating that there are differing kinds of anger.  It is self-evident anyway, except to you.

I think you have misunderstood your, "Religion for Numpties."  You are banging your head on a brick wall, yet again.  But it's all a red herring: you have not, despite trying, managed to detract me from my original comment on your fatuous  comment about secularism, and your failure to justify it.  Like to try again?

[Shaker]

But you have very ably managed, albeit temporarily, to distract (not detract, which means something else) attention from your misrepresentation of my words as found in #5 and #7.

[BashfulAnthony]

But you have very ably managed, albeit temporarily, to distract (not detract, which means something else) attention from your misrepresentation of my words as found in #5 and #7.

detract:    "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something."  Yes, that's what I meant.

To repeat, for those who have difficulty with comprehension:  it matters not how many you claim know nothing of secularism:  the crux is, you said, "many do."     How many is many, because unless it means a large number, then it is a meaningless  thing to say, which is the thrust of my argument.  So, how many?

[Shaker]

detract:    "to diminish the importance, value, or effectiveness of something."  Yes, that's what I meant.

Then your grasp of English is clearly as shaky as your grasp of honesty. "You have not, despite trying, managed to distract me from my original comment" (which you presumably meant to write but didn't) is normal, standard English. "You have not, despite trying, managed to detract me from my original comment" (which you did write) is unlettered gibberish.

So 0/10 for reading comprehension but 10/10 for consistency; every thread that you infest with your tedious, humourless, excitable-to-the-point-of-hysterical and curiously illiterate pedantry is absolutely guaranteed to turn into a complete toilet.

[ProfessorDavey]

As Vlad has just done a sterling job of proving, that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem.

We understand what you and Ippy mean by secularism all too well.

And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!) in order to promulgate their secular agenda.

As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.

[ProfessorDavey]

that so many of them don't even know what secularism means is the greatest problem."

I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.

But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).

[Shaker]

And in what way is that 'Stalinist'. How many people do Ippy and Shaker plan to murder or send to correction camps in Siberia (or the UK equivalent!!!)

Corby, I'm thinking. Definitely Corby ... than which no fate could be worse.

As so often you talk complete junk and as others have pointed out you appear to know nothing about secularism.

Aye 

[Nearly Sane]

You might want to adjust that last post, Prof D, as I worry that if Bashful thinks you are misquoting him by posting what Shaker actually said that he might literally erupt - and just think of the mess.

[Shaker]

I agree - getting people to understand what secularism is, and is not is a challenge.

But it isn't helped by wilful and deliberate misrepresentation of secularism and demonisation of secularists by some authority figures in major religions (and their willing followers).

Initially it occurred to me to say be careful, Bashers will be all over you like the white on rice wanting to know who these authority figures in major religions and their willing followers are, their names, addresses, landline and mobile phone numbers, inside leg measurements and credit ratings, until I remembered that since you said it and not me, that won't be the case.

[Shaker]

You might want to adjust that last post, Prof D, as I worry that if Bashful thinks you are misquoting him by posting what Shaker actually said that he might literally erupt - and just think of the mess.

Imagine the froth ...