God exists because the seasons happen in the same order each year

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Couldn't help noticing Vlad, your ignorance of what secularism is all about is showing yet again and it looks as though you have a very limited  understanding of humanism too, they, secularism/humanism, mostly have a differing view to yourself about superstitious beliefs, neither of them are anti theist; anti privileges for theism/theists, well most of us, yes.   

The R C's are very anti secular mainly because in the end where secularist principles are applied it will mostly effect their funding, other stuff as well, but the potential loss of funding is their main worry and I think they find it difficult to take in the very idea of having to live on a level playing field with the rest of us ordinary mortals.

Because of the above the R C church always misrepresents secularism with every chance it gets and it looks like you amongst the many have been taken in hook line and sinker with this anti secular propaganda of theirs.

Again Vlad try to find out what it is secularism actually stands for instead of showing your ignorance in this area, you're not that au fait with humanism either Vlad.

ippy

You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.

Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?

From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."

[SteveH]

You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.

Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?

From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."

Sorry, but the above post is a petitio principii, a tu quoque, a straw man argument and an appeal to consequences, so must be ignored by all right-thinking polysyllabicists on this forum.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.

[Shaker]

Sorry, but the above post is a petitio principii, a tu quoque, a straw man argument and an appeal to consequences, so must be ignored by all right-thinking polysyllabicists on this forum.

Not that that's actually the case, but what do you suggest people do with bad arguments when they encounter them?

Especially repeatedly from repeat offenders.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.

Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everybody but Gabriella.

[SteveH]

Not that that's actually the case, but what do you suggest people do with bad arguments when they encounter them?

Consider that the point being argued for may be true, even though the argument is fallacious, and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.

Especially repeatedly from repeat offenders.Well, the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everybody but Gabriella.

I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers. Incidentally, "repeatedly from repeat offenders" is tautological.

[Shaker]

Consider that the point being argued for may nevertheless be true, even though the argument is fallacious

If it may be true, then it falls to the one who made a fallacious argument in the first place to present one that isn't. Until and unless that happens there's literally nothing to go on - may be, might be, could be alone doesn't hack it.

and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.

Come come, you jest.

I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers.

Well no; clearly not:

The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Consider that the point being argued for may be true, even though the argument is fallacious, and be a bit (well, a lot) less arrogant in your tone.

You're pushing at an open door – anything may be true: gods, leprechauns, the man in the moon. No-one has suggested otherwise.

Now what?
 

I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers.

Logicians rather than philosophers perhaps, and why do you feel that?
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I realise this goes with the territory of a message board - that some posters debate the underlying issues, which makes it interesting to find out other people's views, and some posters just focus on one or two words in a post and pick that to death. But what about the point I made?

[Shaker]

I realise this goes with the territory of a message board - that some posters debate the underlying issues, which makes it interesting to find out other people's views, and some posters just focus on one or two words in a post and pick that to death.

Not only easy to do but vital when those couple of words bring down an argument like Del Boy falling through a bar.

[SteveH]

"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."

You might also try developing a sense of humour.

[Shaker]

"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."

You might also try developing a sense of humour.

I'm right out of developer at the moment.

[Rhiannon]

You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.

Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?

From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."

I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?

I do not support hate crime but I do support the right to speak out against the campaigns by the RC church to prevent legal abortion for those who need it - even victims of rape and incest - and their desire to reverse marriage equality and the damage that would do. If you hold abhorrent views and try to foist them on others then you have to expect to find that society does not much care for what you stand for.

And it's not 'mainstream' to support abortion rights and marriage equality, as if this man is taking some courageous stand against liking the X Factor or Pizza Hut. It is still risky to be openly gay. We still judge women for abortion - it's still taboo to talk about having one. It's not 'mainstream', it's humane to want a society that allows both, its humane and compassionate. It's no surprise that Catholicism fails drastically in this regard, but then its made-up god of guilt and vengeance is created in its image.

[Shaker]

I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?

From what relatively little I know of the wretched little dweeb I think I'm on safe ground in saying that what the Wee Flea thinks of as "a sustained campaign of abuse" is actually "being made fun of".

As for the rest: brilliant post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

From the article:

"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage.

Just out of interest, what makes you think that some or all of that is true? What did this "sustained campaign of abuse" consist of, and how would you know that it was "simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage" in any case? 

[SteveH]

"I leave feeling superior to all the amateur philosophers."
Well no; clearly not:
"The above post is the first sensible one, apart from mine, on this thread so far."

You might also try developing a sense of humour.

You are also being logically fallacious (I leave it to the fallacy nerds to decide which fallacy it is): there is nothing intrinsically arrogant or superior in assuming that one's own posts are sensible; everyone must do that, or they wouldn't make the post in the first place.

[ippy]

You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? It could be there and I missed it but all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.

Presumably you are not disagreeing that some people who self-identify as secularists try to silence certain religious teachings by labeling them as hate and can become abusive to people they disagree with?

From the article:
"The Rev Robertson has been the victim of a sustained campaign of abuse for many years now simply for re-emphasising Christian teaching on the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. One of the big lies that have been allowed to take shape in modern, diverse Scotland where all are apparently welcome is that failure to sign up to the mainstream view of society and what it means to be human is evidence of hate."

Your post is slightly off key nothing that bad and mainly probably due to not being familiar with the history of how Vlad finds it beyond him to understand secularism and our conversations on this.

Robust secularism? Secularism only aims to end religious extra say/privileged position in events to no more or any less of a say than anyone else, a level playing field that would also be no more of a privileged say for secularism or humanism as well.

I like most secularists are very much against the many religious privileges that remain from times past, the one of the most obvious privilege is the one given to the C of E  it has 26 seats for the bishops in the house of Lords as of right and rubbing in the salt when they retire guess what, they're given a title that enables them to have a seat in the House of Lords, anyway there's loads more than that single example.

As you can see it has nothing to do with being anti religious or as Vlad mistakenly thinks anti theist, anti religious privilege yes.

ippy

[Shaker]

You are also being logically fallacious (I leave it to the fallacy nerds to decide which fallacy it is): there is nothing intrinsically arrogant or superior in assuming that one's own posts are sensible

But there is in regarding those who can correctly identify bad arguments as nerds, which is generally not a complimentary term.

[ProfessorDavey]

... all I took away from that article is a complaint that certain people and groups in society are increasingly vocal against certain views held by Catholics, and this increased vocalism has been labelled as robust secularism in the article. And that this robust secularism is trying to silence certain Catholic teachings e.g. against abortion by labeling these teachings as "hate" in order to silence those holding those views.

And here lies the hypocrisy. Survey after survey has found that a majority of catholics in the UK support abortion and their view are not heard within the church - so in effect he wants his cake and east it. In other words to have the orthodox catholic teaching on abortion to be heard, debated and respected within wider society (which of course they are) while not permitting the views of the majority of catholics on abortion (which isn't in agreement with orthodox catholic teaching)to be heard, debated and respected within the RCC.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said the RC is anti-secular because secularist principles affect their funding. Where in the linked article is there a complaint about funding? 

I think the issue of funding is there, albeit obliquely. Specifically faith school - which are run by the catholic church but are funded from general taxation.

'When some foolish but influential voices in Labour also began to question the continued existence of Catholic schools it became clear that while the party boasted of being a broad church it was having trouble accommodating some of its members who were confessing Christians.'

I think the RCC in the UK are terrified that some future government might abolish faith schools (or rather may no longer fund them from the tax payer), as they are massively important in maintaining numbers of practicing catholics (or rather slowing the decline).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not only easy to do but vital when those couple of words bring down an argument like Del Boy falling through a bar.

I prefer posts where someone actually makes an argument about the issue but like I said goes with the territory that some posters seem to amuse themselves by responding to posts without addressing the interesting stuff - the ethical or moral issues. 

[Rhiannon]

I don't see how you can debate an argument that's fallacious to start with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I prefer posts where someone actually makes an argument about the issue but like I said goes with the territory that some posters seem to amuse themselves by responding to posts without addressing the interesting stuff - the ethical or moral issues.

I really think you’re missing the point here. When someone says, “I validate my claim of a true for you too god with the following argument” and that argument is falsified, then that becomes “the issue”. When the validating argument has collapsed, what else is there to discuss?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,

I really think you’re missing the point here. When someone says, “I validate my claim of a true for you too god with the following argument” and that argument is falsified, then that becomes “the issue”. When the validating argument has collapsed, what else is there to discuss?

Whether or not the claim that the argument has been falsified is true for one. What properties of truth apply that allows that claim to be valid, or verified, for example?

[jeremyp]

I disagree strongly with a lot of what he says, but it's an intelligent article.

Let's see.

He claims I ought to respect his opinions on abortion and equal marriage for all even though his main reason for them is that his imaginary friend told him. It's also a bit hard to stomach the Catholic claim of sanctity for human life when they cover up child abuse on the part of their employees. See here:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/15/break-confessional-seal-over-crimes-says-pedophile-priest

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/14/clergy-who-fail-to-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession-should-be-charged-royal-commission

Children have suffered sexual abuse because priests who heard confessions by child molestors and their victims did not go to the police. That's not sanctifying human life, it's holding it in contempt.

Also, the paragraph referred to in the thread title is risible. Does he honestly think we don't know why the seasons are always in the same order? He's going to blow his mind when he finds out that, in most parts of the world there aren't four seasons, but we can explain that too.

The reason why a lot of people don't take his arguments about things like abortion and gay marriage seriously is because we are adults and "my invisible friend said so" is not considered to be a good argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Whether or not the claim that the argument has been falsified is true for one. What properties of truth apply that allows that claim to be valid, or verified, for example?

Logic.

A logically fallacious argument is always a wrong argument.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm unaware of any evidence that this man has been the victim of hate crime, except his own assertion of such. Is there a police statement to back this up?

I do not support hate crime but I do support the right to speak out against the campaigns by the RC church to prevent legal abortion for those who need it - even victims of rape and incest - and their desire to reverse marriage equality and the damage that would do. If you hold abhorrent views and try to foist them on others then you have to expect to find that society does not much care for what you stand for.

And it's not 'mainstream' to support abortion rights and marriage equality, as if this man is taking some courageous stand against liking the X Factor or Pizza Hut. It is still risky to be openly gay. We still judge women for abortion - it's still taboo to talk about having one. It's not 'mainstream', it's humane to want a society that allows both, its humane and compassionate. It's no surprise that Catholicism fails drastically in this regard, but then its made-up god of guilt and vengeance is created in its image.

I think you misread the article. Robertson did not say he was the victim of hate. The article seems to be saying that stuff Robertson says is mis-labelled as "hate" by certain people who presumably self-identify as secularists, in order to silence him from voicing his opinions. And the article seems to be saying this happens to other Catholics, expressing their views on various matters.

So for example, despite attacks on Muslims and mosques, he would object to people who try to silence his opinion of Islam e.g. in the article below by labelling him Islamaphobic or someone who hates Muslims.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/568999/Free-Church-minister-sounds-alarm-over-rise-of-Islam

The article says

"At least, though, you could still have a debate about these things in the old Labour Party. Those who supported a woman’s right to choose to abort her baby might disagree intensely with your pro-life sentiments but they would appreciate the sincerity of your position. In modern Scotland though, which strives to be the world’s most enlightened and inclusive wee country there is a campaign afoot to shut down all debate on those issues which Scotland’s social Sanhedrin considers sacrosanct and beyond dispute.

Thus, if you sincerely believe that a human life in the womb is deserving of as much protection as any other human life you are considered an extremist and obviously (if you are male) a sexist who is guilty of crimes against feminism."

I won't copy and paste any more - as the rest of it is right there in the link.

So it seems the main point of the article is an objection to shutting down of debate. Given there will be hate crimes sometimes committed on gays, women, Muslims etc are some people saying it is ok to shut down debate on sincerely held positions? This is a recurring theme - and seems to have played a part in voting for Brexit and Trump. I think the article has a valid point about the danger of shutting down debate by mis-labelling some views as "hate".