The good news is that more and more people are deserting State schools because the fruit of secular humanism is obvious. Even many politicians who claim to back secular values send their kids to private schools. The fundies among the secular humanist really are an arrogant bunch. One day they will face up to the simple fact that along with everyone else they have an adamic nature. All their self righteous rants and ravings won't change what is obvious.

Oh man, runner, if there were some kind of robot that picked out fallacies in statements, it would malfunction from the sheer number of them you churn out in such concentrated bursts.

Looking at your commentary purely from logic and divorcing it from ideology - it's riddled with fallacies. I mean, absolutely riddled. You start from flawed, unsubstantiated premises then build on them until the resulting argument has no resemblance to anything remotely reasonable.
Lets take this one as an example:

"The good news is that more and more people are deserting State schools because the fruit of secular humanism is obvious. Even many politicians who claim to back secular values send their kids to private schools."

"If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question."
"Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true."

I've lost count of the times I've patiently explained to you the complex issues surrounding private and public schooling, and the fact that government subsidies toward improving the education in church schools are a significant motivator in these matters, but you choose to discard reason and can't even dignify it with a logical response.

You go on to state:

"The fundies among the secular humanist really are an arrogant bunch. One day they will face up to the simple fact that along with everyone else they have an adamic nature. All their self righteous rants and ravings won't change what is obvious."

There's parts of all these fallacies in there:

"Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test." "

Not to mention, quoting out of context, ad-hominem statements (playing the man, not the ball).

I also think you qualify for:

"Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)".

Further proof for my assertion on the previous page, that this education should take the form of critical reasoning classes.

If religion has so much to offer, why doesn't it try to win its battles in the adult arena of ideas, rather than trying to load children up with dogma before they're old enough to discriminate?

I would prefer to see ethical and moral education left to parents, but if they're going to be part of the curriculum, humanism is the most civilised option available

Dear *pat* Pericles.... a-gain....you did your usual..and missed an important word.

I did not say that opting out of faith automatically leads to materialistic hedonism.....

I said it did so for MANY young people..

This is your same-oldx2 "You hate all Muslims" mantra... shabby me boy..shabby.

DAVID F said: (of Humanism)

"Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions."

Dear David..if 'scientific' enquiry begins with a presupposition that snakes can't talk :) even when you meet one you won't believe it.
Same goes for burning bushes which are not consumed.. or dare I say.. men blind from birth who only know one thing "I was blind....but (after Jesus healed him) now...I can see"

It is most unscientific to define it in materialistic terms only. Specially if there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
I include as 'evidence' the personal testimony of real people..including myself.

All I'm saying...is that in your explanation of Humanist belief, you also show us it's biases and assumptions. Any belief system, wether mystical or not.. must exclude at least some other contrary belief systems. It's not something to be upset about..it's just life.

MEREDITH..welcome back mate...hope ur health is good.. this is.. :) "u know who".. we emailed remember.. (just follow Pericles posts and he'll say who I am)

OLY....I'm aware of your view of history :) we disagree but that's ok.
Rock sharpens Rock right?

Just weasel words again, Boaz.

>>I did not say that opting out of faith automatically leads to materialistic hedonism..... I said it did so for MANY young people..<<

But why should it do so for any of them, Boaz?

>>This is your same-oldx2 "You hate all Muslims" mantra... shabby me boy..shabby.<<

Ok, it's showtime. Again.

I have asked you this before, and you have invariably ducked the question.

Whenever the opportunity arises for you to comment upon Islam, you explain to us all how Muslims are driven by bloody surah bloody nine, to wreak unending havoc upon the world.

So please tell me now, in words of one syllable if possible, that you do not ascribe these verses, and their intent, to Muslims as a whole, but only to those few terrorists who choose to act out their violent religious fantasies on others.

Until and unless you do, I shall continue to believe that i) you believe that bloody surah bloody nine is the guiding force of all Muslims and ii) therefore every one of them is a threat to civilization.

Fair?

If you can do this, then I will immediately cease to infer from your clumsy interpretations of a foreign religion that you believe that all Muslims pose a threat, and only bring to your attention those occasions when you repudiate your position.

And I should point out that it is not admissible for you to suggest that anyone who doesn't follow bloody surah bloody nine cannot call themselves Muslim.

That would be a cop-out, wouldn't it?

Polycarp wrote:

Dear David..if 'scientific' enquiry begins with a presupposition that snakes can't talk :) even when you meet one you won't believe it.
Same goes for burning bushes which are not consumed.. or dare I say.. men blind from birth who only know one thing "I was blind....but (after Jesus healed him) now...I can see"

Dear Polycarp,

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Unlike religious verities it can be challenged by the receipt of new evidence. The fact that individuals believe the Bible stories of talking snakes, burning bushes and sight restored is no evidence that these phenomena exist. Aboriginal people have legends of a Rainbow serpent. I have no reason to belive that is other than legend.

I have actually seen a burning bush. Walking in the desert I saw what looked like flames coming out of a bush. Coming closer I saw that it was a whirlwind which carried sand in the air in what certainly looked like burning bush. There is absolutely no reason to believe something is true because it is written in the Bible unless there is evidence to corroborate it. It is superstitious belief.

Polycarp also wrote:

"It is most unscientific to define it in materialistic terms only. Specially if there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
I include as 'evidence' the personal testimony of real people..including myself."

Science deals with the behaviour of matter. One can only define science in materialistic terms. Scientific evidence is not based on testimony. If every person in the world testified that the world was flat it would not make the world flat. Personal testimony can start a scientific inquiry, but if the testimony cannot be verified by actually physical evidence it does not establish fact.

Strong belief is not scientific evidence. Personal testimony is not scientific evidence. I really don't think you know what science is.