[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I seem to remember badchad saying that he almost has more respect for the fundies over liberals, them not cherry picking and all.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I believe he has said it straight out and implied it a few times.
Which means someone is
Worshipping at the altar of consistency is a fool’s game. You are welcome to play it.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And many of us believe in things that don’t exist, like clutch hitting. The thing is, people don’t know they are cherry-picking from fantasy. You are assuming that your facts are the truth, just as any religious person does.
We cherry-pick. That’s the important thing, and that’s what gets badchad’s drawers in a bunch. We all do it, all the time, in our attempt to get the world and our ethics to come into agreement.
And yet he’s not quoting the entire Bible. Cherry-picking? From fantasy? You bet your ass.
[/QUOTE]
The christian take is that god and jesus are all-loving and all-knowing. He points out instances that disprove that. If he was all-loving, all that mean stuff wouldn’t be in there, right? So what’s your point?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
If it doesn’t mean what it says, then which of you non-literalists is the correct interpretor? Why SHOULDN’T I take it at face value? Because it makes god and jesus look like Mr. Meany Pants and his own version of “Mini-me?” Bullshit. It is what it is.
[/QUOTE]
You know what? No one knows which of us non-literalists is the correct interpretor…each one of us just does the best he can. You are more than free to look at what the Bible says literally and reject it (you are going to be inclined do so no matter WHAT interpretation it is given, because you don’t believe in God anyway…my assumption is that we could take any religious text from any religion and you would have the same opinion.)
But if you think you can go through life understanding Christianity at large ONLY by taking the Bible literally, then you are deluding yourself. Every single Christian on earth is different from every other. You can’t ever assume because someone says he or she is a “Christian” that you have any idea where they are coming from. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world alone, never mind all the many, many Protestant denominations. We all have different concepts of God, different moral codes, different political opinions. I wish we could make it all very simple for you by all thinking EXACTLY the same way, but that isn’t how it works.
Additionally, f you think you can throw Bible literalism at a Christian who doesn’t take it literally, then you are arguing illogically. There is no point to arguing with someone over your definition of what he is supposed to believe.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Why SHOULDN’T I take it at face value? Because it makes god and jesus look like Mr. Meany Pants and his own version of “Mini-me?”
[/QUOTE]
No, because failing to understand a person’s argument means that you are doomed to ignorance. You and badchad can shriek all you want about what people believe, you can make up things about what they believe, and assume what they believe, and accuse them of cherry-picking and hypocrisy and whathaveyou. But at the end of the day, all you will have accomplished is making people ignore you as you deliberately choose to wallow in self-imposed ignorance.
Badchad’s entire schtick is: “That isn’t what you believe.” Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum.
If you actually care what people believe, listen. Have a dialogue. If you don’t care, just state that up front and don’t waste anyone’s time.
For someone who claims not to know Biblical arguments, you talk a big game and are awfully sure of your rightness. Gosh, that sounds like… like… a religion.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You know what? No one knows which of us non-literalists is the correct interpretor…each one of us just does the best he can. You are more than free to look at what the Bible says literally and reject it (you are going to be inclined do so no matter WHAT interpretation it is given, because you don’t believe in God anyway…my assumption is that we could take any religious text from any religion and you would have the same opinion.)
But if you think you can go through life understanding Christianity at large ONLY by taking the Bible literally, then you are deluding yourself. Every single Christian on earth is different from every other. You can’t ever assume because someone says he or she is a “Christian” that you have any idea where they are coming from. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world alone, never mind all the many, many Protestant denominations. We all have different concepts of God, different moral codes, different political opinions. I wish we could make it all very simple for you by all thinking EXACTLY the same way, but that isn’t how it works.
Additionally, f you think you can throw Bible literalism at a Christian who doesn’t take it literally, then you are arguing illogically. There is no point to arguing with someone over your definition of what he is supposed to believe.
[/QUOTE]
So arguing fact vs. opinion is what **badchad ** a troll? That is what I just got from your post. I made a joke earlier and you just said pretty much the same thing in all seriousness. Apparently you cannot understand the Bible without belief is something some Christians believe.
Jim
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So arguing fact vs. opinion is what **badchad ** a troll? That is what I just got from your post. I made a joke earlier and you just said pretty much the same thing in all seriousness. Apparently you cannot understand the Bible without belief is something some Christians believe.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
Not sure about your joke…I guess I missed it. I think I am just going to refer you to jsgoddess’ post directly above yours. She said it much more eloquently than I think I could.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Umm, no links to those cites. 
*He * doesn’t have an informed opinion at all. Like I said- all he has ever done is regurgitate what that site and Infidels has said. In other words, he just reads a couple of the well known atheist sites and regurgitates their work (often without bothering to give them credit) and thoughts. And that is only when he comes up with anything at all resembling an argument- most of his posts are just ad hominem or personal attacks. Mainly on poor Polycarp. Badchad seems to make harrassing Polycarp his lifes work here. Nice. :rolleyes: Dudes, as a “doubting Christian/agnostic” I have to say this: if you atheists are picking the rude asshole troll Badchad as your spokesmodel, and the Xtain crowd is going with the well spoken, gentle, always reasoned Polycarp- the Xtians have won. Hands down. Jeezus, you dudes have picked the atheist equivilant of Jack Chick fergawdsake.
(Don’t worry, every time I read a Chick Tract, my stomach roils and I get a headache also. He’s an asshole too, and a reason why I can’t strat to call myself a Christian)
[/QUOTE]
We didn’t elect a leader. We prefer to think independently, thankyouverymuch. Following the viewpoint of just one fellow atheist is precisely what would get us kicked out of the Atheist’s Club.
Speaking for myself: I left the church as a young child. My familiarity with the Bible is pitiful. My experience with Christianity is based entirely on daily interactions with God’s followers. In social matters, I feel fairly confident that I can present an alternate viewpoint to the Christian code of conduct. But when a Christian cites the Bible or defends it, I have to leave the discussion to badchad or Diogenes the Cynic because they have a working knowledge of the Bible.
When I defend badchad’s use of harsh speech- what I am defending is the use of bias in this discussion. Religion is an emotional matter, and both sides have made strong statements that disparaged the other. I don’t feel that badchad should be pitted for taking an aggressively anti-Bible stance or using the word “cunt” unless FriarTed and other fundamentalists are also pitted for gleefully condemning non-Christians to everlasting torment.
Skald the Rhymer, Jodi, Sarahfeena, and kunilou (to name a few) have been much too polite and humble to resort to damning or name calling; and to that end they are a credit to Christianity. Both sides have been getting in a few good natured digs at the other’s expense; so- no harm in expressing frustrations. The use of the word “cunt” didn’t enhance the discussion; but it didn’t derail it, either. The debate has continued in spite of the name calling and the damning and I appreciate the opportunity to better understand the practice of faith as it applies to modern life.
(BTW, thank you Skald, for introducing me to the term Bibliolatry. Somehow I missed that concept- and the worship of the book vs. the implementation of it’s teachings are precisely what cause me great angst. And special kudos to both Jodi and mrrealtime for trading those comical insults without hard feelings. Big of mrrealtime to apologize, big of **Jodi ** to accept. Just proves that one can be devoted and flexible.)
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
If sincerely- then why not keep it to yourself? What do you have to gain from offering this sentiment aloud?
[/quote]
Then why would you, BadChad, or anyone else have a need to post anything on this board either? Should we all “just keep it to yourself”? My post iterates that I have chosen not to be inflamed by BadChad’s comments, instead…I respect his point of view and the right to say it, and I expressed my point of view in very simple terms. Christians also come in all stripes and colors as well as atheists. I have nothing to gain or lose by stating this. I am just one human reflecting upon another human.
No. I am just one person with one POV. I don’t rely on others to make my case for me, and there are plenty of christian and atheist posters here that make very well thought out arguments that I respect but seldomly comment on.
Sorry that you perceived my post as a “drive-by”. I am very well aware that most posters here can stand on their own two feet. I was not commenting on Jodi’s rebuttal, I was reflecting on BadChad.
No. I don’t know BadChad any more than you know me. Also, credit is given, not taken. Reminds me of this.
Or I can simply state them here. The board rules are not THAT restrictive. Quite a few posters here are sharing their personal beliefs here as well.
“Sincerely” means “sincerely”. If I didn’t post that, then you could make the fair assumption of “drive-by”, “trolling”, “condescending”, etc.
“Thoughts and prayers” is not the whip you think it is, nor is my post the “Lash” you think I’ve dealt out. What part of “Sincerely” do you not understand?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
No, because failing to understand a person’s argument means that you are doomed to ignorance. You and badchad can shriek all you want about what people believe, you can make up things about what they believe, and assume what they believe, and accuse them of cherry-picking and hypocrisy and whathaveyou. But at the end of the day, all you will have accomplished is making people ignore you as you deliberately choose to wallow in self-imposed ignorance.
Badchad’s entire schtick is: “That isn’t what you believe.” Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum.
If you actually care what people believe, listen. Have a dialogue. If you don’t care, just state that up front and don’t waste anyone’s time.
For someone who claims not to know Biblical arguments, you talk a big game and are awfully sure of your rightness. Gosh, that sounds like… like… a religion.
[/QUOTE]
Look…people can believe whatever they want. But if they base their belief in an all-loving god on the writings in the bible, they are the ones who are ignoring the actual writings. Why can’t you say, “I like *a lot * of what christ said but *some * of it is really mean and shitty” instead of saying, “christ is perfect and loving and christ and love are interchangeable words” etc.? Obviously, if he wasn’t a two-sided coin he wouldn’t have been represented that way.
Dialog is fine. Doesn’t mean I have to buy into your viewpoint. I have no information that would point me toward believing there’s a god. But I’m still waiting. Can you provide something other than faith or a text that no one agrees on the meaning of? Anything? A microscopic spec of persuasion? I’ll be first in line to say you were right.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
So arguing fact vs. opinion is what **badchad ** a troll? That is what I just got from your post. I made a joke earlier and you just said pretty much the same thing in all seriousness. Apparently you cannot understand the Bible without belief is something some Christians believe.
Jim
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, I think I will try to address your second point here. You can understand the Bible at face value by simply reading it, without having any belief in it or in God. This gives one a basic understanding of the Bible as…well, as literature, I guess. But this isn’t typically what is being discussed. One can also understand various interepretations of the Bible without believing in any of them, as well. It makes sense to me that one should try to at least realize that the person debating the opposite side does not come from a literalist POV.
[QUOTE=Yeticus Rex]
“Thoughts and prayers” is not the whip you think it is, nor is my post the “Lash” you think I’ve dealt out. What part of “Sincerely” do you not understand?
[/QUOTE]
Whether you intend it or not- that statement is condescending. It reducers the “non-believer” to “mis-understander”.
“I’ll pray for you” from a Christian to a recent widow is a kindness.
“I’ll pray for you” from a Christian to an atheist implies that the atheist is suffering, searching; lost.
Depending on when and where it is used the phrase can be a kindness or the Hammer of God.
As far as expressing your point of view, there are several threads in a discussion that has gone on for days. If you have an enlightened view or can clear up some misunderstandings between atheists and Christians- please, please, participate. This is your opportunity to teach instead of patronize.
And one more thing…sorry for the double-posting, here. One of the points Diogenes was making in the post I linked to was that there is an assumption that if the believer isn’t taking the Bible literally, then they are not to be respected as a “real” believer. This is something that Fundamentalists may think, but most Christians realize that there are any number of interpretations that can be taken seriously, if not actually believed as the Truth. Typically, in non-Fundamentalist Christian circles, this kind of attitude is taken with a little bit of an eye-roll. It doesn’t show much about ones’ ability to think logically, when it is clear that the Bible contradicts itself in places.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
And, that’s why DtC gets my respect (and why I bestir myself to debate with him, which debates I lose as often as win, I have to admit), and why Badchad doesn’t get any respect from me- and why I don’t bother to respond to Badchad’s ravings & general trollery.
Umm, Kalhoun? I later said “no links to those posts of Badchads”. And, linking to something shows you’re just not *making things up. * We don’t like that much on the SDMB. True, I wouldn’t ask for a link to a KJV quote, I should be able to find that myself once Chapter and Verse is given.
[/QUOTE]
I have no reason to disbelieve a few posts where he didn’t include chapter and verse because he usually does. If you’re too paranoid to accept that he’s knowlegeable on the subject, that’s your problem…not mine.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Look…people can believe whatever they want. But if they base their belief in an all-loving god on the writings in the bible, they are the ones who are ignoring the actual writings. Why can’t you say, “I like *a lot * of what christ said but *some * of it is really mean and shitty” instead of saying, “christ is perfect and loving and christ and love are interchangeable words” etc.? Obviously, if he wasn’t a two-sided coin he wouldn’t have been represented that way.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that’s almost exactly what I did say in this thread, see in particular this post, this one, this one, and most explicitly here. And I don’t base my beliefs on the Bible. I still got pummelled with unremitting attacks for harboring an opinion badchad did not share.
I was, at the time, looking forward to some of that dialog. I had less interest in a totally adversarial fight with someone who appeared to have no goal but “winning the debate”.
I don’t think badchad’s participation is inappropriate or outside the bounds of what the 'Dope is all about, but I didn’t find the exchange particularly pleasant.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
*He * doesn’t have an informed opinion at all… if you atheists are picking the rude asshole troll Badchad as your spokesmodel, and the Xtain crowd is going with the well spoken, gentle, always reasoned Polycarp- the Xtians have won. Hands down
[/QUOTE]
Poly may be my favorite Christian, all-time, but that doesn’t begin to make him right. Am I supposed to give a fuck, Dr. Deth, that you’ve ruled (astonishingly) the Christian as the winner of the debate with the atheist, on the basis of rhetoric and style? Amazing! Polycarp has written some of the kindest, most thoughtful, most self-effacing and completely head-up-his-ass-wrong posts I’ve ever read, while **Badchad ** has written some of te rudest, smuggest, most obnoxious posts I’ve ever read and been completely correct in doing so. Would have me decide that black is white and day is night and up is down because of style points, or are you just saying that the more devoutly Christian you are, the more correct you are?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Dialog is fine. Doesn’t mean I have to buy into your viewpoint. I have no information that would point me toward believing there’s a god. But I’m still waiting. Can you provide something other than faith or a text that no one agrees on the meaning of? Anything? A microscopic spec of persuasion? I’ll be first in line to say you were right.
[/QUOTE]
I am an atheist, so your post is pretty meaningless for me. I have zero reason to persuade you there is a god, since I don’t believe in a god. I certainly don’t believe in the bible. But I only know what I believe, not what other people believe. You said
You take badchad at his word that he believes what he posts, but you won’t take the religious at their word that they believe what they post. You defend one, saying he’s knowledgeable (when you claim not to be knowledgeable yourself), then you attack the other saying that they aren’t admitting things, or are cherry-picking, or inconsistent.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
Actually, that’s almost exactly what I did say in this thread, see in particular this post, this one, this one, and most explicitly here. And I don’t base my beliefs on the Bible. I still got pummelled with unremitting attacks for harboring an opinion badchad did not share.
I was, at the time, looking forward to some of that dialog. I had less interest in a totally adversarial fight with someone who appeared to have no goal but “winning the debate”.
I don’t think badchad’s participation is inappropriate or outside the bounds of what the 'Dope is all about, but I didn’t find the exchange particularly pleasant.
[/QUOTE]
Didn’t look like a pummeling to me, but obviously YMDV. I’m not saying he’s perfect…I’m just saying when it comes to biblical stuff, he’s usually right. Hey…not everyone is always going to be on the correct wavelengh to engage in conversation, debate, all-out war, or verbal anihilation. I’ve seen him (and others) fit into all those categories at one time or another. Such is life around here.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I am an atheist, so your post is pretty meaningless for me. I have zero reason to persuade you there is a god, since I don’t believe in a god. I certainly don’t believe in the bible. But I only know what I believe, not what other people believe. You said
You take badchad at his word that he believes what he posts, but you won’t take the religious at their word that they believe what they post. You defend one, saying he’s knowledgeable (when you claim not to be knowledgeable yourself), then you attack the other saying that they aren’t admitting things, or are cherry-picking, or inconsistent.
[/QUOTE]
BadChad isn’t attributing things to the bible that AREN’T there. But some believers fail to attribute things that ARE there. Can you see the difference? Can you see why when someone says “jesus is love” and when another person points out a non-loving statement by jesus in the bible, how I would think that a particular christian either isn’t reading carefully, or is wilfully ignoring a portion of text that doesn’t fit with their image of christ?
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Poly may be my favorite Christian, all-time, but that doesn’t begin to make him right. Am I supposed to give a fuck, Dr. Deth, that you’ve ruled (astonishingly) the Christian as the winner of the debate with the atheist, on the basis of rhetoric and style? Amazing! Polycarp has written some of the kindest, most thoughtful, most self-effacing and completely head-up-his-ass-wrong posts I’ve ever read, while **Badchad ** has written some of te rudest, smuggest, most obnoxious posts I’ve ever read and been completely correct in doing so.
[/QUOTE]
True and Poly has been wrong too, I hasten to add. But the facts in evidence **prove ** that Polycarp has "written some of the kindest, most thoughtful, most self-effacing " posts, and Badchad has “written some of te rudest, smuggest, most obnoxious posts”. Those facts are in evidence.
As to who is wrong or right- that is a matter for GD, and your opinion. I tend towards thinking Badchad is more correct, but his posts have not given me any evidence towards that at all- just my natural doubting. For the nth time- just because you already agreed with someones opinion- that does not mean their debating style or arguments are more persuasive. Unless you’re going to try and tell us you were a Beleiver before you read Badchad? :dubious:
So, yeah, you already were a Doubter, and thought the Bible was full of inconsistanecies- did anything Badchad do change your mind?
OTOH, those posters here that think that Christians are all a bunch of bible-thumping Chick-tract reading Fundies have read Polycarps gentle prose and- even if still not convinced to convert- have changed their minds about “all Christians” at least. Badchad wins no arguments- only those that agreed with him beforehand think his arguments have any merit. You only like his arguments as he is preaching to the choir. 
He does nothing to convince those of us in the middle, except make us think that too many atheists are about as close minded as Jack Chick. Badchad is the “Jack Chick” of atheism.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Can you see why when someone says “jesus is love” and when another person points out a non-loving statement by jesus in the bible, how I would think that a particular christian either isn’t reading carefully, or is wilfully ignoring a portion of text that doesn’t fit with their image of christ?
[/QUOTE]
So, if I say “Marriage is love” then you being able to point out that there are some marriages that suck makes my statement incorrect for me?
If I say “Comedy is funny” and you point to a scene in a comedy that’s played for tears, it makes me wrong?
All language has nuances. All texts must be interpreted. Everyone has an agenda, and badchad’s is more blatant than most. And again, he cherry-picks, and he respects some cherry-pickers (fundies) and attacks others (liberals) for the same faults. In other words, he tries to make sure that things fit snugly into his worldview, which is exactly the same thing those he attacks are doing.