Bad news for Secular Humanisms ''Good Bloke'' theory.

[Shaker]

Can you direct me to Dawkins critique of what Weinberg said?

Nope. I don't know if there's such a thing. How does this irrelevance help you to shore up your statements thus far? Looks very much like sheer evasion and distraction to me. Can you substantiate any of the claims or insinuations you've made on this thread? Also nope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. I don't know if there's such a thing.

Probably not.

Dawkins irrelevant? When the lead New Atheist is provided by a national TV company with a huge shot at religion......a massive B29 bomber of a thing which only had the name Root of all evil plastered up it's side, irrelevant?

[Shaker]

Probably not.

Dawkins irrelevant?

Dawkins's critique of Weinberg's quote is irrelevant to your substantiation of your claims. For which, you'll notice, we're still waiting.

It's a dodge, a swerve, a distraction tactic.

When the lead New Atheist is provided by a national TV company with a huge shot at religion......a massive B29 bomber of a thing which only had the name Root of all evil plastered up it's side, irrelevant?

Yes. Not even his choice of title.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dawkins's critique of Weinberg's quote is irrelevant to your substantiation of your claims. For which, you'll notice, we're still waiting.

It's a dodge, a swerve, a distraction tactic.
Yes. Not even his choice of title.

He didn't mind that much though.

What has secular humanism got to offer if society doesn't get any better under it?
If it, as it seems, that people aren't basically good after all in the way SH suggests?

Do you agree with Weinberg?

[Shaker]

What has secular humanism got to offer if society doesn't get any better under it?

Isn't it better now than at some (unspecified) point in the past when religious belief was more widespread? (Which point specifically?). I think it is. Why is it not, in your opinion?

If it, as it seems, that people aren't basically good after all in the way SH suggests?

Where does humanism state this? Certainly not on Wikipedia:

Contemporary humanism entails a qualified optimism about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help.

Your sample size of 18,000 is doing a hell of a lot of work here isn't it? Bearing in mind that your link adds:

... assaults can occur when treating frail, older dementia patients or in those with severe mental health conditions.

What do these examples have to do with secular humanism? Again, where's your evidence of a causal link? It appears in the title of your thread so presumably you must think there's some sort of relationship. What is it and on what evidence do you base this belief?

Or is it just faith?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't it better now than at some (unspecified) point in the past when religious belief was more widespread? (Which point specifically?). I think it is. Why is it not, in your opinion?Your sample size of 18,000 is doing a hell of a lot of work here isn't it? Bearing in mind that your link adds:

What do these examples have to do with secular humanism? Again, where's your evidence of a causal link? It appears in the title of your thread so presumably you must think there's some sort of relationship. What is it and on what evidence do you base this belief?

Or is it just faith?

Sample size.? That's just in NHS wales.

[Shaker]

Sample size.? That's just in NHS wales.

Yes I know. And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I know. And?

...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...

[SqueakyVoice]

...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...

Well it's the only sample you've provided thus far.

So clearly you're taking the piss.

[Shaker]

...And therefore it isn't my sample size as you suggested...

Well it clearly is because you provided a link to a particular news story with that sample as the headline. 

Further, in the thread title you state that this news story is "bad news for secular humanism's 'good bloke' theory."

This of course begets several questions.

1) What is secular humanism's "good bloke" theory?

2) Who has defined or expressed this theory?

3) Where did you pick up on this theory? On what grounds do you link this to secular humanism?

4) What in your opinion is the causal link between assaults on NHS Wales staff (often provoked by alcohol but also including patients suffering from dementia and other serious psychiatric conditions) and secular humanism, such that secular humanism in the thread title is justified and relevant to assaults on NHS staff?

5) How much longer do you plan to dodge, bluster, distract and evade before you flounce off this thread only to repeat exactly the same behaviour (i.e. never answering questions about your claims, assertions and insinuations) on another sub-forum?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well it clearly is because you provided a link to a particular news story with that sample as the headline. 

Further, in the thread title you state that this news story is "bad news for secular humanism's 'good bloke' theory."

This of course begets several questions.

1) What is secular humanism's "good bloke" theory?

2) Who has defined or expressed this theory?

3) Where did you pick up on this theory? On what grounds do you link this to secular humanism?

4) What in your opinion is the causal link between assaults on NHS Wales staff (often provoked by alcohol but also including patients suffering from dementia and other serious psychiatric conditions) and secular humanism, such that secular humanism in the thread title is justified and relevant to assaults on NHS staff?

5) How much longer do you plan to dodge, bluster, distract and evade before you flounce off this thread only to repeat exactly the same behaviour (i.e. never answering questions about your claims, assertions and insinuations) on another sub-forum?

1:          That humanity is intrinsically good
2:          Philosophers such as Rousseau and Mill
3 and 4: That poor behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism is part of the territory that goes with the claim of increasingly good behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism. What evidence do you have that the violence is all down to dementia patients?

Secular Humanism cannot avoid the insinuation that a secular humanist society is better than a religious one.

Still, perhaps you can tell us how you can hold a moral irrealist view and talk about being as good or better without religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well it's the only sample you've provided thus far.

So clearly you're taking the piss.

So, violence only occurs in the welsh NHS does it?

[Shaker]

1:          That humanity is intrinsically good

Contradicted by the quotation I provided earlier.

2:          Philosophers such as Rousseau and Mill

Rousseau I will concede. Where in Mill's writings do you claim to find this sentiment?

3 and 4: That poor behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism is part of the territory that goes with the claim of increasingly good behaviour being the responsibility of increasing secular humanism.

Is it? That looks like a poorly camouflaged non sequitur to me.

What evidence do you have that the violence is all down to dementia patients?

Are you totally deficient in comprehension? Where did I supposedly assert this? (Good luck).

Secular Humanism cannot avoid the insinuation that a secular humanist society is better than a religious one.

Already covered (#15), so this is repetition, not explanation or clarification.

Still, perhaps you can tell us how you can hold a moral irrealist view and talk about being as good or better without religion.

Besides being a Vladism, what's "moral irrealism"?

[Nearly Sane]

So, violence only occurs in the welsh NHS does it?

Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?

[Shaker]

Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?

Shaker didn't say that all NHS violence is down to patients with dementia, either.

So it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did squeaky voice say that? Oh no. Vlad lies. Please stop lying! Why is it that you lie so much about what people say?

He's saying I provided it as some kind of study sample which I didn't.
Would you say he is mistaken and not ''shooting the shit'' as they say?

Secondly I am asking him to clarify. The key is in that my statement is a question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shaker didn't say that all NHS violence is down to patients with dementia, either.

That's true. My apologies.

[jakswan]

Wow still bothering with this wum, -add to ignore.