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

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?

A straw man doesn't get you off the hook. What you actually said was:

"......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum." (Reply 13)

Secularism would have no such thing, as you well know because it's been explained to you so many times. That there might be some people who do want it is entirely irrelevant to the lie you told.

Why not for once man up and retract the untrue statement you made?

[wigginhall]

Because lying for Jesus makes Jesus love you.

[Gordon]

whoops.

I'll say that again.
You thought I had committed the NPF but I never said God must exist because he cannot be disproved.

I didn't say you did on that basis, so yet another straw-man from you.

In the relevant exchange in the 'Where's the evidence' thread I never mentioned 'God', and neither did you in your post #100, which reads:

I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong.

I'll leave you to ponder on what you said.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Because lying for Jesus makes Jesus love you.

Ah, that must be it. Thanks for clarifying.

[ippy]

Are you saying nobody has desired that or worked for it and that it never has been policy anywhere? Do you not wish for the eventual extinction of religion?

Having read through your posts since my umpteenth observation of your expansive ignorance of how secularism and humanism are and how they work, I couldn't see any response or or any kind of rebuttal.

Having said the above I suppose your ignorance and your lamentable demonstrations of your inability to even learn something about secularism and humanism would be inclined to limit any response.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I'll leave you to ponder on what you said.

And, more to the point, on why he said it. The give away in his, "I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong" is the "but then again". So what? He's clearly trying to imply some kind of equivalence - "OK, I have no proof but nor do you have disproof so, you know, we're even-stevens then aren't we?". 

And then when you point out he's at least knocking on the door of the negative proof fallacy he goes all faux indignant, "Who me? – Never!". It's slipperier than an eel in a Swarfega jacuzzi, but as true to form as ever.   
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

And, more to the point, on why he said it. The give away in his, "I cannot prove I am correct on this one but then you cannot prove I'm wrong" is the "but then again". So what? He's clearly trying to imply some kind of equivalence - "OK, I have no proof but nor do you have disproof so, you know, we're even-stevens then aren't we?". 
 

Please feel free to explain a) how you have proof of your position or
b) How I can not have proof and you don't have proof and somehow we are NOT equivalent in terms of lacking proof.

[SteveH]

Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent, so it's unlikely that he meant what the thread title suggests.

[Shaker]

Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent

Which article are you referring to?

[SteveH]

Gobbledegook. All you are trying to say is that you want to believe it to be true, but cannot substantiate your belief.

I agree with Floo, for once. Far too many people on this forum are far too fond of spouting polysyllabic pseudo-philosophy, and in particular of accusing everyone they disagree with of a logical fallacy.

[SteveH]

Which article are you referring to?

The linked one in the opening post.

[Shaker]

I agree with Floo, for once. Far too many people on this forum are far too fond of spouting polysyllabic pseudo-philosophy, and in particular of accusing everyone they disagree with of a logical fallacy.

No.

People are accused of committing a logical fallacy when they do so. Goodness knows we see them here day in and day out, without exception.

These things - once (or if) you understand them - are pretty clear.  They're not, as Alan Burns would have you believe, one person's opinion against another; they're a natural outgrowth of the way that logic works ... or rather, in the case of fallacies, doesn't. That's not pseudo-philosophy but real and actual philosophy; and to me the oft-heard whine "Waaagh waaagh waaagh fallacy this fallacy that" and complaining about technical and possibly lengthy terminology is a bit of anti-intellectualism usually coming from those with a position they can't defend (and know it).

[Shaker]

The linked one in the opening post.

And that's intelligent?

Seriously?

[SteveH]

And that's intelligent?

Seriously?

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

[SteveH]

No.

People are accused of committing a logical fallacy when they do so. Goodness knows we see them here day in and day out, without exception.

These things - once (or if) you understand them - are pretty clear.  They're not, as Alan Burns would have you believe, one person's opinion against another; they're a natural outgrowth of the way that logic works ... or rather, in the case of fallacies, doesn't. That's not pseudo-philosophy but real and actual philosophy; and to me the oft-heard whine "Waaagh waaagh waaagh fallacy this fallacy that" and complaining about technical and possibly lengthy terminology is a bit of anti-intellectualism usually coming from those with a position they can't defend (and know it).

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/

[Shaker]

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

This is evidently some definition of intelligent with which I'm unacquainted. To me he comes across as somebody who thinks all the different foods in his fridge start whispering to each other as soon as he closes the door.

[Nearly Sane]

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

What bits do you think are intelligent?

[Nearly Sane]

Surely he's saying that some atheists pontificate about the sufficiency of science, but don't know much about it - not that the seasons are God's direct doing. The sentence is badly worded, certainly, but the rest of the article is intelligent, so it's unlikely that he meant what the thread title suggests.

Is he? That makes it even dumber as it then becomes a god of the gaps of the knowledge of whomever he talks to.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/

And if people are arguing that because an argument is fallacious the position that a person has is necessarily wrong e.g. because  X's argument in the existence of a god is fallacious, there is no such god, then that would be wrong but you are misrepresenting what people are generally doing on here which is saying that because the argument is fallacious it is a bad argument.

[Shaker]

And if people are arguing that because an argument is fallacious the position that a person has is necessarily wring e.g. because  X's argument in the existence of a god is fallacious, there is no such god, then that would be wrong but you are misrepresenting what people are generally doing on here which is saying that because the argument is fallacious it is a bad argument.

Exactly.

Once an argument (or a particular strand within an argument) has been correctly identfied as fallacious, that's it. Game over. It's a duff argument, a dud, exposed as resting on faulty logic, so you don't need to proceed any further.

The only remaining option is to reframe the fallacious argument in non-fallacious terms or come up with an entirely new argument again, but on past showing the prospects of that are dismal indeed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Diversionary,

Please feel free to explain a) how you have proof of your position or
b) How I can not have proof and you don't have proof and somehow we are NOT equivalent in terms of lacking proof.

This is easily dealt with. Let's not do that though until you address why you have completely ignored Reply 25. Here it is again, just to jog your memory:

"A straw man doesn't get you off the hook. What you actually said was:

"......as opposed to a secularism which would have religion removed from the public forum." (Reply 13)

Secularism would have no such thing, as you well know because it's been explained to you so many times. That there might be some people who do want it is entirely irrelevant to the lie you told.

Why not for once man up and retract the untrue statement you made?"

Should we take it that you do now retract, only you don't have the cojones to say so? That you persist in your misunderstanding of "secularism"? That you intend to continue to traduce it by lying about it or by damning it by association?

What?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/

That's called the Argument from Fallacy, but your referencing of it a red herring (another fallacy by the way). People here aren't saying, "You're argument is false, therefore your proposition is wrong". Rather they're saying only, "The argument you're attempting to validate your proposition is false". That though tells you nothing about whether it might be possible to validate the proposition by other means.

Vlad, AB et al rely on various fallacies in their attempts to validate their conjectures of a "true for you too" god. Those arguments are easy to falsify, but that doesn't mean that their god(s) necessarily doesn't exist, any more than it would mean that leprechauns necessarily don't exist if I tried the same bad arguments to validate them..       

[SteveH]

More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.

Which part don't you understand?

[Shaker]

More polysyllabic gobbledegook in many post above.

Why does the use of accurate terminology intimidate you?