Nowhere357

"In fact"? Are these actual true facts, or official dk approved psuedo-facts?

Alonzo Fyfe

Um, no. I was making an argument against religion -- that religion has failed to lead, and has indeed devoted its energies to fighting those who did lead in bringing about the great ethical advances of the last 1000 years.

Your comments about communism does not even address this charge, let alone defend against it.

yguy

It certainly doesn't address HIS point, but I had no desire to do that, as it is specious. He's clearly imbuing secularism with a sense of moral superiority, which I am pointing out lies more in the realm of theory than in reality.

If we're going to judge secularism solely on its good aspects, why do we not do the same for theism?

yguy

No, you made a claim for secularism that isnt supported by historical facts, unless you can somehow show that communism is not secular.

Alonzo Fyfe

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

I did not even use the word 'secularism' and I have no idea what the word means. I did not do what you claim. Your statement counts as 'bearing false witness'.

You may now go ask for forgiveness and promise never to do this again.

In addition, you have engaged another fallacy. The fact that communism is secular is no more a black mark against all atheists than the fact that some black men commit murder is no mark against all black men.

If you wish to charge me with an evil, then do so on the basis of what I say and what I believe. I am not responsible for somebody else's crimes. To say that I am responsible is, yet again, 'bearing false witness.'

Now, once again, the proposition before the court, to be judged 'true' or 'false' is this:

Religion has failed to lead -- and has indeed devoted its energies to fighting those who did lead -- in bringing about the great ethical advances of the last 1000 years.

yguy

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Every advance in ethics in the last 1000 years, from the abolution of slavery to the equal treatment of women to the rejection of the Divine Right of Kings to the condemnation of crusades and inquisitions, has been reached by secularists firsts.

Perhaps you will get an apology if you can tell me what the substantive difference between defending "secularists" and defending "secularism" is.

I never said anything about all atheists, so you are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

Alonzo Fyfe

Easy. I am sure that you have often heard the term "artist", but is there such a thing as "artism?"

If there is, I have never heard of it.

(Or "physicist" and "physicism", or "chemist" and "chemism," etc., etc.,)


Ah, but notice that in my response I never said that you were making a comment against all athiests.

I said that your comment would not work as a comment against all atheists, which is a true statement.

yguy

How about "communist" and "communism", or "fascist" and "fascism"?

I suppose an irrelevant truism is indeed a step up from a false accusation.

Alonzo Fyfe

Do these relationships somehow prove that when a person uses the word "pianist" they must be talking about somebody who practices "pianism" or a "parachutist" must somehow be related to 'parachutism?"

Of course not.


Unless you can come up with something that is true of all atheists, then your comments hit the mark. That some atheists are tyrants is no more a mark against all atheists, then the fact that some priests are child molesters is a mark against all priests.

Actually, it is interesting to note that where I raise my objections, I object against a doctrine. Where you make your objections, they are "ad hominem" (against the person).

And, of course, one cannot help but notice that you never address the issue.

Religion has failed to lead -- and has indeed devoted its energies to fighting those who did lead -- in bringing about the great ethical advances of the last 1000 years.

And

The point I made earlier, the great ethical advances of the past 1000 years (e.g., Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, Bentham, Mill) made their advances, not by quoting scripture, but by use of reason.

Both statements are true. Both are statements are things you seem unwilling to talk about, as you focus instead on a game of "you said/I said".