BadChad, a moment of your time, if you can spare it

The BBQ Pit
181

Because the concept makes no sense.

And 2 + 2 would still equal 4, even if the fourth object vanished when you actually tried it in the physical world. That’s a mathematical, abstract concept, not a physical one.

Given that most humans would not do what God has supposedly done, humanity not only has morality of it’s own, but one far superior to God’s.

Asserting nonsense over and over doesn’t make it true.

The “God is transcendent” argument doesn’t work, because these are all human concepts, created and understood by humans. 2 + 2 = 4 is within our comprehension.

Garbage. Even theologicans admit that God is limited by logic. For that matter, if God is so damned incomprehensible, why are you pretending to know what he can do, or what he’s like ?

You demonstrate one of the reasons why I despise religion and the religious; not only are they insane, but they revel in being insane. They deny logic, rationality, knowledge; everything that makes humans anything more than gibbering lunatics.

182

Thoughts and prayers for BadChad.

Sincerely.

183

I backed it up. Look up a thread he’s participated in and he’ll have cites to back up his statements. I don’t need to do a search for you.

184

You realize this can as easily be read from a Christian POV, talking to an atheist, as vice versa.

Nothing is off limits on this Board. That’s its glory. But it is unreasonable to expect either side to abandon their own POV in a discussion, and it is rude – and counterproductive – to then be contemptuous and insulting because the other side hasn’t rolled right over and acknowledged the brilliance of your position. So it is a surpassingly weak justification of badchad’s offensive continual hard-on for Poly to say “Poly doesnt admit he’s deluded.” Of course he doesn’t admit it; he doesn’t believe it. And it’s unfair of either of you to expect or demand that he post as if he does.

185

You and DrDeth could bother to read RedFury’s links, if you were actually interested.

186

So they’re pissed that “cunt” is being used as an insult? And the reaction to being called a “cunt” is to act grievously insulted? Is this really the best way to drain the offensiveness out of the word?

187

You accepted that as a true statement when you used the premise “if the bible is true”.

Logic is a human invention.

Was a jerkish troll. I said I had encountered him lately, so that may have changed. But unless my memory is faulty, he was warned (or came close to getting an official warning) in one thread about religion when he was a new member.

188

Every person on the planet is a cherry-picker.

How do you know?

189

Gahhh! … hadn’t encountered him lately…

190

That is just wrong on so many levels. :wink:

191

Well, I’m on record as being fond of former poster Collounsbury, who I don’t think anybody is going to accuse of being the model of polite discourse ( and as it happens I fully agreed with his banning ).

But I’m not fond of badchad. Unlike Col, who only occasionally savaged those that didn’t merit it ( not that that excuses the times he did act unfairly ), badchad seems to be fine with regularly acting like a dick towards even the most inoffensive. And I do think the “One Trick Pony” label sticks. Originally he just seemed to stalk Polycarp from thread to thread, now he’s broadened that to just trying to fuck with anybody who might take a moderate, nuanced stance on Christianity. I find that just as tedious as when someone plays that “No True Scotsmen” card with Muslims ( or whoever ).

Yes, he seems like an intelligent, informed person. But I find his single-minded gadfly act tiresome. So if we’re keeping score, this atheist votes thumbs down.

  • Tamerlane
192

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7787311#post7787311
Post 42"I’m sorry but if the bible is true then Jesus is a cunt. Them’s the facts."

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7787133#post7787133
Post 50 “It is not.”

(This is the well known debating tactic known as the “Am not, Are too!” or the "2nd Grader school of debate) :rolleyes:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7787020#post7787020
Post #47 “I think that’s a good idea. Consequently, it seems most reasonable to scratch all miracles and appeals to the divine from the bible, as either being non-literal or non-true. Somehow I have a feeling that kunilou doesn’t do this but just scratches all the things she does not find pleasing. I await his/her elaboration.”
#41 "Kunilou, what words are literal and how do you differentiate what is or isn’t?"
#40 "
*I agree with that. Stuff like there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being who created the earth and loves us. I mean come on; who in there right mind would take that literally. Or how about that one about a guy who rose from the death after 3 days, one would have to have rocks in their head to believe that one. Or that one about eternal paradise after death; that sounds like something we would only tell Children. Any grown up would have to be off their rocker, or literally brainwashed since birth to believe any of that. The power of prayer; anyone can see that doesn’t work. Skald the Rhymer, I agree with you completely.

Heck yeah, that one’s even more crazy. Heck, it’s not even in the bible, but made up by some uninspired wacko long after the fact.*"

#10 "*While I agree with your conclusions Revtim, I think the verse you give is the one called most pertinent by Christians wishing interpret it as saying something different. I think the following references from Jesus add considerable clarity.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36*"

(here we have a couple of out of context KJV quotes. I guess that might qualify as a “cite”.)

#3 "*It is worth pointing out that while some Christians maintain that non-Christians may or will not go to hell. The bible, and the words of Christ in the bible, are pretty clear on the topic that yes non-Christians will go to hell.

Most I know have said or implied this, but according to my observation the proportion of those who do so are less on this board than represents Christianity as a whole. It’s worth noting that when trying to convince you that you should be Christian, many Christians will talk up hell as a very bad place to be. When asked why a loving god would send people to hell, many will then trip all over themselves to tell you that hell isn’t really that bad or maybe all non-Christians will go there, YMMV."*

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7785210#post7785210
#255
*As well you should perceive a trend here raindog. I don’t think you’re cool. I don’t much care if I talk with you. I’ve read what you have said in the past and I don’t particularly respect it. If you don’t like that, well, you can suck on it.

I say start a new thread. We are way off topic on this thread and IMO it’s too long already. I am entirely comfortable with you doubting I would contribute in a substantive way. I think I probably will, but if you doubt that, it’s no skin off my back." *

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7785059#post7785059
#75 *"I think you said, or at least implied, that these insights don’t just feel like they are a gift but actually are gifts from god/the universe/THAT WHICH IS, and that praying is a differential way of reaching these gifts for which secular study can not do as well or better job of obtaining.
Yes.
It has been asked several times, you answered that your prayer does have something extra to offer but you have not demonstrated your answer true to even the slightest degree. There is absolutely no reason why I, or anyone else, should just take your word for it.

Or more succinctly put, you made a claim you can not back up.

While I believe you that proof will not be forthcoming, I deny that “objectivity” as you asked me to define it, is neither viable nor valid. It seems you are trying to defend your earlier statements by making all outcomes as subjective as possible so as to hide them from rational scrutiny.
Yes.

That is fine.
I am content to rest on the strength of my previous statements if you are.*"

I went over the last dozen or pots. One has a cite- well sorta/kinda a cite- and that’s it. Most of the “great debating technique” seems to be along the lines of “Am not, Are too!”

I can’t read any more as my stomach was starting to get queasy and my brain hurt. You know, dude- just because someone agrees with your point of view doesn;t make them a “great debater”. :rolleyes:

193

That’s about as close to admitting delusion as anything I’ve ever seen.

194

Which isn’t delusional at all, really. It’s more refusing to give up the ghost (pardon the pun).

195

No, it’s part of the nature of reality - any reality, I expect.

196

Besides not using it as an insult, they sometimes try to “reclaim” it as a positive, as in this book.

197

Maybe he should make that his sig, so Jodi wouldn’t have missed it! lol.
DrDeth, I’m not sure I see the point or your cut and paste job. Weren’t you going to point out an errant cite?

198

I did. You mean this great debateing tactic (Redfuries 1st cite) "*Polycarp did you forget to take you pills?

All right I was going to post this in the pit a couple days ago but figured I’d wait to see what happened. I was actually a little concerned for him but since he is back to posting regularly and hasn’t addressed the others (some of whom are his friends) who inquired on this, here goes.

Poly thinks Jesus has returned and he knows who he is.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...40&pagenumber=1

Regarding the second coming of Jesus, Poly wrote:

Poly hasn’t yet named names but to me this seems even dumber than when he tried to tell the SDMB he had telepathic powers (if it were anyone else I’d swear he was joking). I’m pretty sure Poly won’t answer me on this thread but what I’m really curious about is if any of his groupies want to follow him down this road, that Jesus is some blond kid, Poly has already recognized him and finds him attractive.

Duck Duck Goose? Andros? Xeno? Beuller? Beuller? How about it guys?

And if I can ask just one more question. Is Jesus’ mom a virgin this time around too?"* (I removed quotes from others)
**Ad Hominem, personal attacks, no cites. **

Then there’s this (2nd cite)"*Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

I think this should be sufficient enough reason for you to question your assertions. Don’t you think your hitherto failure to explain the above dramatically increases the probability that your apparent inconsistencies are actual inconsistencies, and thus based on false premises?
Fine, I’m taking the time to post again. Next time try to be more considerate with regards to others spare time, which may not come as cheaply as yours. Also if possible please give straight answers rather than analogies.

Here goes:

Regarding Jesus you wrote:

If burning the fallible beings you created in an eternal lake of fire for matters of disbelief isn’t considered stern judgment, what is? If that’s loving, what do you consider abusive?
Why do you claim to try and follow Jesus’ commands when I already got you to admit that several of Jesus’ commands you not only don’t follow but don’t agree with? How do you decide which of Jesus’ commands are worth following and which aren’t?
I don’t speak Latin but from the context it seem you believe in a literal hell or at least extermination. Did I get that right? Also aren’t you judging these “good churchgoers” in the same manner that you claim they are judging others? Why is it ok for you to judge others according to the teachings of the bible while they can’t do the same.
Isn’t calling fundamentalists “Neopharasiees” a bit of a slur? Does it not imply again that you are judging them?
How much scripture do you have to ignore (or define as non-scripture) to come up with such a statement?
Should I take this as your admission that witnesses to the resurrection were just reporting their naïve perceptions as to what went on? Same as with your heart attack survival miracle? Also don’t you think it also possible that some who had know Jesus closely just made up stories about him rising again and that their reported perceptions were neither naïve nor honest?

So you think it’s stupid too?
So by that reasoning you admit that once you reach heaven you will become a robot, unable to make choices and grow?
Why do you continually say this when you admittedly only put your trust in some of what Jesus commands, and admittedly follow even less?
Below is one of my favorite Polycarp contradictions, I’ll let my previous ignored questioning ride:
Just curious Polycarp, why do you take Paul at his word here? Isn’t he just a “well-meaning idjit”? You did recently call him that didn’t you:

More on this, why would you follow the teaching of said “well-meaning idjit” over that of the explicit instructions of Jesus himself, who told you were supposed to follow the law?

While other Christians might interpret things differently it is you who says that where the bible and the teachings of Jesus contradict that you should go with Jesus, making comments like:

Can you spin that another way?

Do you ever get tired of coming up with lame rationalizations for incoherently cherry picking the word of god?"* (again, I removed quotes from others)

That’s a 2003 pesonal PIT attack on Polycarp. Not a debate. :rolleyes:

199

If sincerely- then why not keep it to yourself? What do you have to gain from offering this sentiment aloud?

Are you announcing this publicly in order to gain allegiance from the other Christians on board? (Because the Christians here are strong as individuals (like Jodi) have presented a very thorough and well thought out rebuttal without benefit of your drive by.)
Do you plan to take credit to the pearly gates if badchad accepts Jesus Christ into his heart? (Because if there is such a reversal- your God should take credit for it; not you.)

Or are you simply stating your personal beliefs for the record? (Because you can put that in your profile.)

How would you expect this condescending statement to be taken? It is at the very least as presumptuous; at the most trolling.

It is just lashing out, in the same manner as the offensive name calling that badchad is accused of. But might makes right? Right?

200

I never claimed any “errant cites”. What **I ** asked for is evidence of his oh so great cites :rolleyes: that others have claimed he made. I don’t see any cites to speak of, errant or otherwise. Just Ad hominem and personal attacks.