I hardly think one statement amongst his many informed postings, supported with cites, is avoiding honest debate. It was a momentary interjection of personal opinion, straight-up and in-your-face (everyone else does it at one time or another). If that’s ALL he ever said, I’d say those who are offended would have a bitch to pitch. But that’s not the case. He can go toe-to-toe with the best debaters around here and does, 99% of the time.
But people are offended by it (though not me personally). Now, that might be a problem on their side rather than of badchad’s, but the fact remains that there is offense being taken. So rather than take the time to try and persuade people why it isn’t offensive in a hijacking of a thread, it’s probably best to just be generally courteous.
He’s backed up his statements a gazillion times. It’s one word in the entire thread. Yes, he could have said “christ was a big meanie-pants” but he chose a word that more clearly express his intense dislike of christianity. In that sense, it was *very * useful.
“Cunt” is used more and more frequently all the time as a general insult and doesn’t have the same impact it once had. Do I use it? Rarely…but I have used it once or twice when I’m pissed off. I also didn’t used to use the word “fuck.” It’s evolving.
Skald, I know nothing of the aforementioned pitted user nor his transgressions, but the number of colourful insults in your OP will keep me smiling all day long.
Well done, sir.
**BadChad **~ Der Trihs
Thanks. 
Is he alllowed to say “I think christ was a ghastly, uncaring, mentally deranged asshole?” What is he allowed to say in direct opposition to the christian take on christ without it being offensive? What words are on the “no” list? And while we’re at it, which people in the history of the world are “untouchable” and which are we free to flame? Who draws the line in a free society?
I agree with much of what badchad says, and his knowledge of scripture is impressive. I feel that the Bible preaches a message of hate and exclusion as well. I also feel that it is an ancient set of laws which does not allow for progress, but does allow for extrapolation when a Christian has an agenda to promote; i.e. politics.
Unlike badchad I don’t have a problem understanding why someone wants to tickle their parietal lobes with prayer or meditation. If spirituality is one of the ways in which people add meaning to their life: more power to them. So long as they don’t impose their beliefs on others.
But I will defend his right to feel angry and use foul language when refuting the Bible. The only difference between “cunt” and “I look forward to seeing you piss yourself on judgement day” is that the Christian feels they have Divine Permission to damn and disparage. Both insults weigh the same.
You speak only for yourself, of course. It would be a mistake to believe the people you’re talking to necessarily share this opinion.
You’re one of those godless heathens I like, Threshold. Even though you never accepted my offer of Grand Viziership.
This also is not necessarily true. It’s equally as likely that the “best debaters around here” won’t engage with him, precisely because he is incapable of practicing minimal civility in how he posts.
As will I defend that right. He’s free to say whatever he wants, within board rules of course. **Skald **is free to Pit him and explain why what he says doesn’t work for him and another approach might, and I’m free to agree. Ain’t life grand?
No one’s suggesting censorship.
I won’t even argue with that. I find much of the Old Testament odious, and I suspect that a face-to-face meeting between me and the Apostle Paul would be tense, to say the least.
I’ll agree again that many Christians use their faith to promote their agendas and to make money; I personally don’t and am offended by those who do. But there are some who are primarily interested in doing good works and improving themselves.
I’d go ahead and pit whomever said the latter about judgment day if I were sure who it was (Friar Ted?); it is not the sort of behavior Jesus (or Aslan :-)) would approve of. I don’t believe in a physical Hell, but if I did, I’d hope that God would feel nothing but sorrow at any who consigned themselves there (since, to the extent I believe in any hell, it is that Hell is the state of deliberately denying oneself access to God). And I don’t think Ted’s desire to see unbelievers urinate upon themselves on the day of judgment speaks well of him.
Count me in as an atheist, who has no use for organized religion, who also wishes he would STFU until he can learn some manners. He’s rude, condescending, and abrupt.
Scald is only pitting me because she knows if she tried to debate me rationally I’d chop her up. My response to her in the thread she links in the OP was a bit sarcastic but hardly inflammatory. I guess that’s hard to take when the jokes on you and you have no response.
'Tis funny to see this Pitting, because I was thinking of starting a Pit thread headed “I like Bad Chad,” and inviting my fellow Dopers to take potshots at me for my tastes in posters.
Basically, I’m with Kalhoun and Beaucarnea: the man knows his shit, better than many of the more devout defenders of holy scripture, and is tenacious about defending his positions. He’s no more insulting than any of his adversaries, who feel free to claim (on the basis of just about nothing) that Bad Chad and his ilk will spend eternity as a roasted marshmellow or some such nonsense (like that’s not far worse than wishing death on someone?), and to assert that all the interference Christ-worship plays in our daily lives is somehow beneficial, instead of the tedious, time-wasting and liberty-destroying role it actually does play.
He’s clear, witty, determined, and he takes no guff from weak-minded worshipers of circular reasoning.
Mark this as a ballot for Bad Chad.
badchad, do you understand that this pitting is about your debating style, not your ideas? The part I’ve underlined is a good example. It’s similar to “Oh yeah? Well, you’re ugly.”
I’m an atheist too. Our arguments will be better served if you would debate them with more civility. Your style is pit-worthy.
That’s not true. I’ve seen “The Big Guns ™” posters *back down * when he catches them in errors they can’t support.
- He catches them in blatant contradictions.
- He catches them cherry-picking
- He catches them making up new definitions of words and interpretations of scripture that have nothing to do with the actual words that are printed in the bible.
That’s not uncivil. That’s debating honestly. For the most part, he’s been very civil. Particularly since he’s been back. Telling someone they’re wrong isn’t rude debating. It’s not dishonest. It’s not abrasive. I’m sure it’s uncomfortable to be told your Big Picture beliefs have no basis in fact, but that’s not uncivil.
Yes, I’m fully aware. My style, while a bit inborn, is intentional.
Another atheist who thought the guy behaved badly in that thread. There’s a time and place. I guess I’m a gently evangelical atheist who doesn’t want to piss people right off immediately,whatever I think in secret. But I also wanted to throttle Friar Ted, too. That statement was up there with “in case of rapture” self-pleasing glurge bumper stickers, but with a nasty pointy end to it. Actually, I wanted to slap around a lot of people in that thread.