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

The BBQ Pit
461

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not quite omnipresent, but it feels that way. More importantly, they have a great deal of power, and are very loud.
[/quote]

Fair enough. I don’t live in the US, here the religious right is almost inexistant.

Well, I don’t call it crazy since to me it’s a natural human feeling. And I believe that people can be religious without becoming puppets of something else.

It’s not your obligation to prove the inexistence of a divinity, which is an impossible task anyway, but neither is it the obligation of believers to prove the existence of a divinity. It is also impossible to prove, and they may very well do whatever they want without having a proof it’s useful. They don’t (or shouldn’t) care if you think it’s ridiculous.

462

[QUOTE=severus]
Well, I don’t call it crazy since to me it’s a natural human feeling.
[/quote]
Being crazy is hardly unnatural to humans.

[QUOTE=severus]
It’s not your obligation to prove the inexistence of a divinity, which is an impossible task anyway, but neither is it the obligation of believers to prove the existence of a divinity. It is also impossible to prove, and they may very well do whatever they want without having a proof it’s useful.
[/QUOTE]
Of course it’s possible to prove - if it was true. It can’t be proven for the simple reason that it’s all delusional. And yes, it is their obligation to provide some evidence, if they want to qualify as anything other than fools and lunatics.

463

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And yes, it is their obligation to provide some evidence, if they want to qualify as anything other than fools and lunatics.
[/QUOTE]

Particularly when they are continually attempting to smear their batshit craziness over laws, education and public morality.

464

We all need our prophets: -
[Quote=Slartibartfast]
I’d rather be happy than right, anyday.
[/quote]

465

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Well, gee, it must have been the repeated use of the word “you” in a post directed at me that confused me.

My answers to what? Specific questions about my faith? I’ve already posted why I’m not answering. Repeatedly.

You have no baggage? Please. Your response to the whole “Jesus is a cunt” issue was “Why do you care? He’s just a DEAD GUY,” as if you don’t know damn well that He’s certainly more than “just a dead guy” to Christians. The best that can be said about that sort of comment is that you are so invested in your own POV you can’t even see that someone else might have a different one – not even on such an obvious issue as whether Jesus, acknowledged by Christians to be the Son of God, is “just a dead guy” or not. You start from the POV that Jesus is “an imaginary diety” and then you frame the issue as “what words are allowed when describing an imaginary diety.” IOW, you frame the issue so thoroughly in your own POV that another POV isn’t even admissable. Before I could even talk to you about this, I’d have to get you to climb off that high horse. I’m not interested in working that hard.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not the one that has held the solid belief that there’s even a god, let alone an earthly representative of him. That’s YOUR baggage. I was raised agnostic and have always understood that we gather information and evidence, in little bits and pieces, that lead us to a previously unknown fact. Things we had no idea about will come to be common knowledge. The reason I am no longer agnostic is because I don’t believe that god’s existence is unknowable. I believe it is possible to know one way or another whether or not there is a god. But so far, there is ZERO evidence in favor of his existence. If that changes, so will my feelings on the subject.

What I was asking you, and what you DIDN’T address, was how you pick and choose which parts of the bible are the truth. That’s a far cry from “why do you believe?” I was inquiring as to what the criteria for accuracy in a tangible text are. The basis in belief in christianity lies in the bible. That was the record that was assembled and the text that all christians use, to one degree or another, to establish his existence in their minds. Did you decide which parts were accurate and which weren’t on your own? Were you assisted by clergy? Your parents? What was it about the particular points you’ve discarded that made them unpalatable to you?

466

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]

And FWIW, in case anyone cares, I was raised Catholic, but I’m no longer practicing. I’m not a Christian, but I’m not an atheist, either. ** Just sort of a vague theist.
[/QUOTE]
**Heh. You’re not alone.

467

[QUOTE=Jodi]
You explain to them why the things they do are dumb? Of all the charity much of Latin America is in need of, you go with “you people should be less dumb”? One can only imagine the gratitude. I hope in addition to your sermon you give them a sandwich or something, like the rest of the missionaries.
[/QUOTE]

There you go getting all over-the-top again. He didn’t say “they’re” dumb. He said “it’s” dumb. You’ve never done anything dumb in your life? You were never ignorant of a rule or law? You’ve never made a mistake? Get some prespective.

468

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Well, and I didn’t mean to sound like I was directing this at ALL atheists-I mostly meant those who were sneering and talking down to those with faith-badchad, Der Trihs, etc. FWIW, I agree with you on the above, although I’d go further and say I DO feel that the Jack Chick types are beneath my contempt. Assholes, every one of them. I wouldn’t deny them needed aid in an emergency, but I feel that way about everyone.

As for MY personal beliefs? Well, basically, I’m of the belief that I think there’s something there, some kind of god, or force, or whatever, that most religions are simply different ways to reach that god*, but that I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t think anyone can truly know one way or another until we die.

*I’m excluding things like Scientology, or the Jim Jones type cults which are only out there to fleece people.
[/QUOTE]

Would that include the catholic church?

469

Fuck. Sixteen pages of ranting and at the end of it I, who gave up believing in the invisible sky-man at about the age of six, am left wondering which rock all these foam-flecked bulgy-eyed fucknuggets perpetually shrieking “you are RELIGIOUS so you must be a LYING CRAZY IMBECILE and the only way to save yourself is to listen to ME!!” crawled out from under. I never realised atheism could become an actual religion, and a particularly unattractive one at that.

Still, if I ever have to encounter any of them in real life, I suppose I can always pop into the nearest church or mosque or whatever to escape…

470

[QUOTE=severus]
Also, to Der Trihs and badchad, and the other atheists who think that it’s ridiculous to believe in anything unless you have complete, convincing proof: I see your point, but you’re underestimating the power of faith. Maybe you’ve never felt the urge to believe, but I have (and I am nevertheless an atheist), and it is a powerful, natural human feeling. And don’t forget that you can’t ever prove the non-existence of God. Despite this fact, you may (and probably will) still think it’s dumb to believe, but believers aren’t ignoring the evidence: there is no evidence against their belief.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not even looking for complete proof at this point. I’d be happy with the tiny spark that would set the investigative wheels in my head turning. Something!

471

[QUOTE=Pazu]
Well, this thread has moved on way too fast, but…

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You are absolutely right! So, I invite anyone who is interested in knowing exactly what it means to me to be a Christian to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I suggested to badchad. I don’t think the mods would appreciate it if I cut & pasted the whole thing here. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’ve searched and bookmarked one source for the catechism, so I can at least follow along :), but you’ve already noted upthread that you’re not 100% in agreement with that either. So which are the parts you can dispense with, and how did you reach the conclusion that they were dispensible?
[/QUOTE]
Geez, I guess in the Pit a person can’t make a joke. The point to this was that it would take a lot more than this message board for me to explain how the Bible is interpreted by the Church or anyone else. The Bible is a big, big book, and it has only been 2000 years of people trying to understand it (and that’s just the NT). The catchism is about 1000 pages long. Do you really think I can boil it down to a pithy little statement? Here’s the thing about the Church. They took that big, big, book, and out of it got the catechism and the various creeds, espeically the Nicene Creed, that summed up their religious beliefs. It would be very difficult to find specific Bible verses that stand alone in supporting each line of the creed. It came through understanding the history, context, symbolism, and relationship to the OT that the Church came to their teachings. I am not a theologian, and not entirely equipped to try to explain it.. I am happy, as I have said before, to try to explain individual teachings as best I can.

I am more than happy to try to do so…will jump over there when I have time later to take a stab at it. I definitely did not ignore it on purpose, whatever it was! :slight_smile:

472

[QUOTE=Pazu]
The problem with that statement is that there’s an infinite number of potential whatevers that can’t be proven to not exist. I’m not going to haul out the tired standard examples, so I’m just going to ask why the Judeo-Christian god is somehow a more compelling something-that-can’t-be-disproven than any of the infinite other things-that-can’t-be-disproven.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that He is. He certainly isn’t to billions of other people in the world. I studied various other religions. In fact, took a year where I did this with the aim of trying to figure out your very question. And I still question it all the time. It’s very difficult to know what is right. But that’s the thing…when you are dealing with something that doesn’t have a “right” answer, you just have to go with what feels right to you as an individual. Catholicism is a good religion for me…the rituals and rules speak to me, because I am the kind of person who likes rituals and rules. Other people don’t, which is fine for them. Dob said eariler that he thought all that stuff was silly…I see it as a gift God gave us. See how people can have a different perspective? Which one is right and which one is wrong? I think mine is right for me, and Dob’s is right for him, and as I’ve said many times, I don’t think God worries too much about all those details.

473

During your studies, did you ever consider that there is no god and that our existence is just an unplanned cosmic fluke?

474

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
You are absolutely right! So, I invite anyone who is interested in knowing exactly what it means to me to be a Christian to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I suggested to badchad.

[QUOTE=badchad]
But you think the bible is full of errors and I thought the Catholic Catechism claimed inerrancy.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
The Church claims inerrancy of their Catechism, not of the Bible. That is, they have never taught Biblical literalness. They believe that their interpretation of it is inerrant.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That is true. I posted earlier (I think in another thread, not this one) that the one thing I know is true is that God exists. No matter how much anyone badgers me, I will never be able to give a rational explanation for this.

[QUOTE=badchad]
It’s good to know you admit no rational basis for your belief. That’s half my point anyway. Be sure to remember that you yourself have no rational basis for belief when you deride biblical literalism because all you Christians are standing on the same slope.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
We are all standing on the same slope if we say that we can prove God exists, that is true.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
And I don’t think any less of anyone who knows something different

[QUOTE=badchad]
But as far as you know, Jesus does, right?
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]
No…how would I know that? I have never been taught that Jesus doesn’t love all equally.

[QUOTE=badchad]
Your god is generally asserted to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, correct? Have you really never heard of the “problem of evil?”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=badchad]
One might rationally say that if you can’t see, hear, touch or otherwise detect him, then there is 0.0 reason to believe he exists. That’s different then saying he can’t exist. However, once you start attaching attributes to your invisible being (all loving and all powerful) then we can say he can’t possibly exist.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=badchad]
As Der Trihs has already pointed out there is no more reason to believe your gods exist than the Greek gods exist or for that matter vampires werewolves or the spaghetti monster. Can you really not see the logic in this?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, I can see the logic in all of it. Of course I can. Here’s the thing…it doesn’t matter. No matter how hard I try to make God go away, He doesn’t. Do you really think I come across as someone so stupid that all of this hasn’t been considered? Maybe I do. Maybe just by virtue of believing in God, your opinion is that I MUST be that stupid. That’s fine…it’s your opinion, and you are entitiled to it. I know that God exists. I have no proof. The thing is, I have no reason to worry about belief in a flying spaghetti monster, so I haven’t spent much time dwelling on it. If there proves to be one someday, that will be interesting, but I doubt it will affect me one way or another. The existance of God DOES affect me, so I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. Call me silly (oh, wait, you already did), but that’s where I’m coming from.

475

[QUOTE=Pazu]
I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Occam’s Razor isn’t a theory; it’s more properly a principle or a maxim.

The rest sounds like a declaration that once you’ve made up your mind about the existence of something, it’s fait accompli, regardless of data, observations, or logical proof. Am I misunderstanding?
[/QUOTE]
You are right, theory is the wrong word. But the point is that it has never made much sense to me. As I said, in the universe something exists, or it doesn’t. Whether or not I can prove it doesn’t affect it’s existance. Whether or not anyone on earth even conceives that it could POSSIBLE exist, doesn’t affect it’s existance. Man’s brain is not what brings things into being. We have conquered a lot in terms of understanding the physical universe, but that doesn’t mean that what we haven’t figured out isn’t there, waiting for us to do so.

I don’t know where you got the second part of your question. It has nothing to do with that. If you gave me data, or logical proof that God doesn’t exist, that would be a different story, but you can’t. So, does He not exist, just because you can’t prove that He doesn’t?

476

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]

Sure, I can see the logic in all of it. Of course I can. Here’s the thing…it doesn’t matter. No matter how hard I try to make God go away, He doesn’t. Do you really think I come across as someone so stupid that all of this hasn’t been considered? Maybe I do. Maybe just by virtue of believing in God, your opinion is that I MUST be that stupid. That’s fine…it’s your opinion, and you are entitiled to it. I know that God exists. I have no proof. The thing is, I have no reason to worry about belief in a flying spaghetti monster, so I haven’t spent much time dwelling on it. If there proves to be one someday, that will be interesting, but I doubt it will affect me one way or another. The existance of God DOES affect me, so I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. Call me silly (oh, wait, you already did), but that’s where I’m coming from.
[/QUOTE]

You know, Sarahfeena, you are reading insults into BadChad’s post that aren’t there. You’re inflating it and responding disproportionately to both his tone and words. He’s disagreeing with you respectfully.

477

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You know, Sarahfeena, you are reading insults into BadChad’s post that aren’t there. You’re inflating it and responding disproportionately to both his tone and words. He’s disagreeing with you respectfully.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Not from what I’m reading he isn’t.

478

[QUOTE=slaphead]
Really? Not from what I’m reading he isn’t.
[/QUOTE]

Point out where he was disrespectful. Note: respectfulness doesn’t imply agreement.

479

[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

480

[QUOTE=slaphead]
Really? Not from what I’m reading he isn’t.
[/QUOTE]

Which is my point about civility. Since Sarafeena’s position is almost exactly as offensive to Badchad as his is to her, when she asserts that she KNOWS that God exists, she is being extremely disrespectful to his core beliefs, which state (quite reasonably in my view) that no one can know that God exists, one can only believe in God’s existence. To posit that one knows that God exists is to state forthrightly that people who don’t share that knowledge are simply wrong, or at a less advanced stage of development.

And here is where badchad has her. If she continues to condescend to him, by insisting that she has knowledge of something that she is unable to prove or share, he’s perfectly free to dish out his own brand of incivility and intolerance without upping the ante a tiny bit. He’s simply keeping the discourse at the same level of condescending intolerance (which believers don’t seem to appreciate when they’re on the receiving end, do they?) And if she backs off her ludicrous statement that she “knows” something she can’t share or prove, then she’s back to claiming merely to “believe” in something, allowing **badchad ** to resume his logical argument that Christians are free to believe whatever they like but it’s simply a personal and unsupported belief that is indistinguishable from any other delusion.

If your belief system makes you interpret that last comment as uncivil, then you should examine your belief system, because to unbelievers, religion is delusional. To describe our values (logic, rationality, science, etc.) as inherently uncivil is to poison the well of discussion, and to be particularly hypocritical and self-righteous while doing so.