What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Well we can start with the previous Pope during his visit to the UK in 2010 equating secularism with the Nazis.

Or the former Archbishop of Westminster claiming secular atheists aren't fully human.

How's that for starters.

[Shaker]

Bashers will, I'm sure, be along to comment later 

[ippy]

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.

Worse than murder I'd make him watch a more lengthy than usual cricket match; don't they all last about two months anyway?

ippy

[floo]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

[Shaker]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

Maybe so, but I wouldn't be included to go down that route for two reasons.

First that's for that poster to know (we can't) and only he can reveal this and only if he wishes to.

Secondly that view can be countered in reverse - i.e. that the most committed atheists on this board are actually jealous of the believers and wresting with their own lack of faith.

Now I certainly know this not to be the case for me - can't talk for others - bit it is a bit poor to suggest that extreme theists are atheists in denial, but extreme atheists aren't theists in denial.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.

Or not - see above.

Actually I think me point was that there should be consistency and actually we can't really know unless the poster(s) in question wish to open up about it, so it is a rather futile line of discussion, in either direction.

[Shaker]

In either direction - quite so.

Therefore if believers don't want to have their motives psychologised at a remove, they shouldn't presume that they are entitled to do it to atheists.

[ProfessorDavey]

In either direction - quite so.

Therefore if believers don't want to have their motives psychologised at a remove, they shouldn't presume that they are entitled to do it to atheists.

That's about right.

[floo]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.

True.

Doubts are healthy if you acknowledge them, imo.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

You really will have to wash your mouth out: not just to rid yourself of your nastiness, but to wash away your verbal diarrhea.   

[BashfulAnthony]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

I assume this is a joke post.  Oh, it's Floo:  so yes, it is a joke.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

But it couldn't possibly be as bad as the stench of tripe emanating from the combined forces of the atheists here.  Actually, by "combined forces," I mean bullies.  They always seem to need to hunt together:  probably because they can't handle anything on their own.

[BashfulAnthony]

I wonder if a particularly belligerent theist is jealous of those of us who don't have a faith? Maybe they have serious doubts, but are scared to face up to them. Instead they slag off the nasty heathen on the forum!

This sort of armchair psychologising is sometimes directed at atheists; turnabout seems fair play, as they say.

To me it's rather akin to an imbecile, trying to be clever

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

Worse than murder I'd make him watch a more lengthy than usual cricket match; don't they all last about two months anyway?

ippy

Ah, if only you could arrange it for me!   

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

Well we can start with the previous Pope during his visit to the UK in 2010 equating secularism with the Nazis.

Or the former Archbishop of Westminster claiming secular atheists aren't fully human.

How's that for starters.

I wonder how many people took any notice of them;  or cared?  I'm reasonably informed, and it's the first I've heard about those quotes.

[jeremyp]

 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

You're assuming I could be bothered to read the relevant thread.

[jeremyp]

You made the post, you fool.

Doesn't your book forbid that sort of talk?

He made a deal with me not to insult people if I stopped swearing.  I knew the fuckwit wouldn't be able to keep it up.

[jeremyp]

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

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

[BashfulAnthony]

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

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

Don't call me a liar.  Clearly you managed to fail utterly to follow what was said  (no change there, then!)  It is either ignorance on your part, or plain lying.  And don't forget the original point I made, which has conveniently been side-tracked.  You are a disingenuous piffle talker.  I now await an answer, no doubt littered with words from your extensive  collection of gutter-snipe vocabulary.  If you do, I'll ignore it.  By the way, I think you broke the "deal" some time back and could not wait to free yourself to go back to your unintelligent, immature, foulness.  I dread to think what it's like to be in your company:  fortunately, that won't ever happen, unless there really is a Hell  -  I would be watching through the window, with ear-plugs on. .

[BashfulAnthony]

 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

You're assuming I could be bothered to read the relevant thread.

Like you couldn't be bothered to read this?  You couldn't keep your oar out.

[Hope]

Not all religionists but quite al lot of you it seems to me really don't like secularism, why's that?

Please explain?

ippy

ippy, I think the problem can be attributed to a variety of misunderstandings. 

Firstly, there is a well-known label for something that has nothing to do with secularism, really, Secular Humanism.  Anyone brought up an any sort of literature will know of the likes of Asimov, Attwood, Bentham, Bronowski, Chomsky, A.C.Clarke, Russell, Sagan - etc., etc..  Those of us who are religious have no great problem with such folk, though we may disagree with some or all of their understandings of the world.  They are all well-respected scholars/authors/... .

Secondly, there are those who shout about the importance of secularism, yet then espouse ideas that aren't secular.  For instance, there those who argue that any second chamber of government should not only have NO CoE Bishops sitting in its midst, there should be NO (official) religious representation at all in such a place, when true secularism would have official representation from as wide a range of belief systems represented within the population as possible.  Even you have done this at times; almost all your threads about secularism relate to the position of the Christian faith in society - few to other faiths and their influences.

To sum it up, secularism has almost as many meanings as it has adherents.

[Nearly Sane]

Suspiciously alphabetic list there, Hope.

[Hope]

Suspiciously alphabetic list there, Hope.

I almost gave a link to the Wikipedia page that lists them alphabetically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secular_humanists).

[jeremyp]

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

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

Don't call me a liar.

It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.