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

The BBQ Pit
501

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
The problem isn’t with me. The problem is that the question…no matter how it’s phrased or how many times it’s posed…remains unanswered, except for the pat response, “I use a different standard to measure the validity of the concept of god than I do everything else the falls into the “supernatural” column.” We ask why you have separate standards and the reply is always "I dunno…just do!" You can understand our frustration when otherwise intelligent people refuse to respond intelligently to a fair question.
[/QUOTE]

No, the problem is with you. You don’t recieve an answer you think is good enough, and they you get frustrated. Too bad, says I. People are not required to be able to articulate their beliefs or how they arrived at them at all, much less in a manner that is acceptable to you. You are not entitled to any answer, much less one you find “good enough”, especially when you start – as you have repeatedly done – from the premise that what they believe is “delusional” or “insane”. It’s like you think you’re entitled to a conversation that goes: “I think you’re nuts. Prove to me that you’re not.” Who the hell would want a piece of that?

It is possible to ask people why they believe in God and not Santa and not be offensive. Shoot, both **Sarafeena[/]b and Malacandra have taken a shot at the question from different points of view.

You can’t do it. Why on earth you don’t see that as your problem, I don’t know.

502

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
There is a substantive difference between believing in God and believing in the Magic Sky Pixie, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an invisible friend. The only attribute these entities share is that there is no positive proof of their existence. When we are talking of God we are talking about an entity which has been believed in for thousands of years by an enormous number of people; about which there is a large body of theology that has been extensively discussed by people who have often given independent evidence of their own intelligence; which is held to have certain characteristics and may place certain expectations on those who believe in it. An invisible friend is the product of the immature child’s unlearned concept of reality; or else is known by the child not to exist but treated as quasi-real for the sake of emotional comfort. The other three are all acknowledged to have been made up either for the purposes of learned debate or else in order to play silly buggers, and I know which side my stake is placed on that particular question.

Now, mark! I have not said that belief in God is patently right when belief in the others is patently wrong. But I have said that the differences between them (as though anyone actually did believe in the MSP, IPU or FSM) are marked enough that they ought not to be mentioned in the same breath, unless you are particularly concerned with offending the theist.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, the purpose of the creation of a deity is more complex than that of an imaginary friend, but it is surprising, to say the least, that when the things attributed to the deity never happen, the belief continues without question.

With regard to:

I know plenty of believers who freely admit this when asked why they believe.

503

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
No, because describing one’s opinions as knowledge is offensive. True, Sarahfeena patronizingly allows badchad to describe his own opiinions as knowledge, but only to allow herself to claim that she 'knows" God exists. She knows nothing of the kind. She thinks that God exists, as badchad thinks God does not, but calling your opinions “knowledge” doesn’t make it so.
[/QUOTE]
Based on this definition of what is rude, then going simply based on a ratio of assertions of knowledge (about the unknown) to overall posts, Der Trihs has to be the most rude poster, with badchad coming up closely in the top five, and no theist anywhere in the top ten.

If you do not wish to make that accusation, you may want to reconsider your claim.

504

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]

With regard to: {belief in an invisible friend is comforting}
I know plenty of believers who freely admit this when asked why they believe.
[/QUOTE]

Odd. They claim to believe in something they know doesn’t exist?

505

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
When we are talking of God we are talking about an entity which has been believed in for thousands of years by an enormous number of people.
[/QUOTE]

You realize that this is a losing argument for you, don’t you? You haul out all the people who believe in Jesus, or whatever, and I’ll haul out all the people since the dawn of time who didn’t, and you lose. By a very large number.

Don’t like that kind of argument any more, do you? Didn’t think so.

506

I was going to take Badchad’s responses and refute them one by one, but after reading them again, he, once again, isn’t trying to learn or debate anything, just insult.

So per him I am insecure and irrational. You can’t debate willful intelorance, so I wont bother. But I do have a question…

Badchad, per [this](Mission Frontiers.org) 2% of the worlds population is Athiest, and per this the world population is around 6.5 billion. So, about 160 million people in a world of 6.5 billion dont believe in God or other spiritual diety. Which leads me to my question;

Do you think the other 6.45 billion of us are insecure and irrational? Do you feel yourself the last bastion of truth and light in the world? I just wonder how far your arrogance stretches.

507

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Based on this definition of what is rude, then going simply based on a ratio of assertions of knowledge (about the unknown) to overall posts, Der Trihs has to be the most rude poster, with badchad coming up closely in the top five, and no theist anywhere in the top ten.

If you do not wish to make that accusation, you may want to reconsider your claim.
[/QUOTE]

Tell me how I defined “rude” again? Non sequitur much?

508

I wasn’t going to get into this thread on a DNFTT policy but at this point I doubt a .2% increase in the thread (at this count) is going to make a difference.

The reasons why people shouldn’t debate badchad are:

A.)His arguments aren’t that deep. They boil down to:
1.) There are a lot of disturbing and weird things in the Bible.
2.) Belief in God is irrational. (Note: Kids, if your trying this at home, Rachel Ray recommends spicing up your arguments with buzzwords like “Non-falsifiable” and “Occam’s Razor.”)
3.) Liberal Christians cherry-pick the Bible.

B.) He delivers these hoary Freshman Philosophy Student cliches as though they were devastating arguments no one had ever thought of before. In fact most of the smarter Christians on this board are well aware of them. Polycarp certainly is, as badchad reminds us in his sig over and over and over and over again.

C.) He’s obnoxious, and his stalking of Polycarp is borderline creepy. He seems to think that if people refuse to engage him, he’s won the debate. It’s as if the crazy guy at the end of the bar who told me George Bush is a reptillian alien from beyond the moon thought he won the debate when I smiled, nodded, and walked away.

The odd thing is, he seems to have a small fan-base. Why Kalhoun, who seems like a fairly reasonable person, sticks up for him is beyond me. Diogenes the Cynic knows a lot more about the Bible, and more importantly, has interesting things to say about specific issues, rather than a general “X’tianity is teh suxxors!!11!! I pwne all u noobs!!”

509

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
“An invisible friend is the product of the immature child’s unlearned concept of reality; or else is known by the child not to exist but treated as quasi-real for the sake of emotional comfort.” – I know plenty of believers who freely admit this when asked why they believe.
[/QUOTE]

You know plenty of believers who, when asked why they believe say something to the effect of, “I’m immature, with an unlearned concept or reality” or “I know God doesn’t really exist but I choose to believe in Him for emotional comfort”?

Come on.

510

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Considering that the evidence is clearly on my side and not on theirs, no. Am I like a crazy fundy for flatly disbelieving in elves and goblins, too ?

Einstein is a good example of my position; his belief in God crippled him. He developed a religious objection to quantum physics; “God does not play dice”; as a result, he became incapable of doing anything new from that point.
[/QUOTE]

If the properties of elves and goblins were discussed by both otherwise reasonable people today and many of the great intellects of human history, we would be living in a very different world. If we lived in such a world, I would say that the number of existing species of hominid was something over which reasonable people could differ, and if you came in saying, “People are it, and anyone who says different is nuts”–yes, you would be like an annoying fundy.

CarnalK answered your Einstein remark quite well, but, Great Flaming Cavies, isn’t the photoelectric effect, special relativity, and general relativity enough?

Bwahahahahah! See, opposite sides can get along. Can I get you a beer? Are you a girl? Can I kiss you? :smiley:

“'Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. '” :wink:
Here you go.

511

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
No, because describing one’s opinions as knowledge is offensive. True, Sarahfeena patronizingly allows badchad to describe his own opiinions as knowledge, but only to allow herself to claim that she 'knows" God exists. She knows nothing of the kind. She thinks that God exists, as badchad thinks God does not, but calling your opinions “knowledge” doesn’t make it so.
[/QUOTE]
Now you are just attributing thoughts and opinions to me that I never said, and don’t possess. You have some kind of preconceived notion about what “religious people think.” That’s your problem, not mine.

512

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Now you are just attributing thoughts and opinions to me that I never said, and don’t possess. You have some kind of preconceived notion about what “religious people think.” That’s your problem, not mine.
[/QUOTE]

What in that quote is a thought or opinion of yours that I have wrongly attributed to you? Specify, please.

513

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I wasn’t going to get into this thread on a DNFTT policy but at this point I doubt a .2% increase in the thread (at this count) is going to make a difference.

The reasons why people shouldn’t debate badchad are:

A.)His arguments aren’t that deep. They boil down to:
1.) There are a lot of disturbing and weird things in the Bible.
2.) Belief in God is irrational. (Note: Kids, if your trying this at home, Rachel Ray recommends spicing up your arguments with buzzwords like “Non-falsifiable” and “Occam’s Razor.”)
3.) Liberal Christians cherry-pick the Bible.

B.) He delivers these hoary Freshman Philosophy Student cliches as though they were devastating arguments no one had ever thought of before. In fact most of the smarter Christians on this board are well aware of them. Polycarp certainly is, as badchad reminds us in his sig over and over and over and over again.

C.) He’s obnoxious, and his stalking of Polycarp is borderline creepy. He seems to think that if people refuse to engage him, he’s won the debate. It’s as if the crazy guy at the end of the bar who told me George Bush is a reptillian alien from beyond the moon thought he won the debate when I smiled, nodded, and walked away.

The odd thing is, he seems to have a small fan-base. Why Kalhoun, who seems like a fairly reasonable person, sticks up for him is beyond me. Diogenes the Cynic knows a lot more about the Bible, and more importantly, has interesting things to say about specific issues, rather than a general “X’tianity is teh suxxors!!11!! I pwne all u noobs!!”
[/QUOTE]

Oww! “He shoots, he scores!” :smiley:

I agree entirely, except I’d not bother with the word “borderline” before “creepy” in that next to last paragraph.

514

[QUOTE=Jodi]
As far as I can see, the difference in the sides – at least as represented in this discussion – is that the atheists think the Christians believe they are amoral and going to hell, but the Christians don’t actually think that, which the Christians believe the atheists think they’re stupid or deluded, and the atheists actually do think that, and have said so repeatedly, in several recent threads.
[/quote]
Once again : Link

We are despised by theists, whether you like to admit it or not.

[QUOTE=Dob]
Do you think the other 6.45 billion of us are insecure and irrational?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. There is evidence that religion is a genetic trait.

515

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
What in that quote is a thought or opinion of yours that I have wrongly attributed to you? Specify, please.
[/QUOTE]
That the only reason I “allow” badchad to call his beliefs “knowledge” is so I can call mine “knowledge.” That is in no way the reason that I call his beliefs knowledge. The reason that I do so, if you are really interested, is because my personal POV on this is that it comes from within. I don’t believe one person can convince another of the existance or non-existance of God. What comes from within me is different than what comes from within you, or badchad, or anyone else. His reality, and yours, is different from mine in this regard. The reason I call it knowledge is because it never changes for me. There have been times when I rejected God completely, but He wouldn’t go away. So, I can’t help but call it knowledge, because it just IS. If, for you or badchad, it just ISN’T, who am I to tell you you are wrong? I have to assume that the feeling inside you is just as strong and steady as the feeling inside me.

516

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I
A.)His arguments aren’t that deep. They boil down to:
1.) There are a lot of disturbing and weird things in the Bible.
2.) Belief in God is irrational. (Note: Kids, if your trying this at home, Rachel Ray recommends spicing up your arguments with buzzwords like “Non-falsifiable” and “Occam’s Razor.”)
3.) Liberal Christians cherry-pick the Bible.

B.) He delivers these hoary Freshman Philosophy Student cliches as though they were devastating arguments no one had ever thought of before. In fact most of the smarter Christians on this board are well aware of them. Polycarp certainly is, as badchad reminds us in his sig over and over and over and over again.

C.) He’s obnoxious, and his stalking of Polycarp is borderline creepy.
[/QUOTE]

A) Arguments don’t require depth. They require truth.

  1. And there are. Still Christians believe in this claptrap.
  2. And it is. If we use logical terms in countering such beliefs, you mock it as pseudo-sophisticated, and if we don’t you mock it as unlearned. Whatever.
  3. And they do, much to their discredit.
    B) How do you know whether he’s bored by the simplicity and obviousness of the hoary cliches, or if he’s awed by them? You don’t. But plese do prattle on. Do you suppose you’re actually criticizing his arguments here?
    C) What does “obnoxious” mean? That you don’t like him? That’s a swell argument. I find you obnoxious, Larry. Does that mean that you are?

Have noticed him stalking Polycarp in this particular thread? Neither have I.

Your pretentious numbers-and-letters format suggests that you’re making a highly sophisticaed, intellectually demanding argument, which looks kind of silly when all you’re saying is “Badchad stinks on ice, and I don’t like his manners.” You made more sense and more of a contribution when you were shutting up.

517

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
That the only reason I “allow” badchad to call his beliefs “knowledge” is so I can call mine “knowledge.” That is in no way the reason that I call his beliefs knowledge. The reason that I do so, if you are really interested, is because my personal POV on this is that it comes from within. I don’t believe one person can convince another of the existance or non-existance of God. What comes from within me is different than what comes from within you, or badchad, or anyone else. His reality, and yours, is different from mine in this regard. The reason I call it knowledge is because it never changes for me. There have been times when I rejected God completely, but He wouldn’t go away. So, I can’t help but call it knowledge, because it just IS. If, for you or badchad, it just ISN’T, who am I to tell you you are wrong? I have to assume that the feeling inside you is just as strong and steady as the feeling inside me.
[/QUOTE]

And everyone’s beliefs you call knowledge, and all knowledge is equal? Or some knowledge is privileged above other knowledge? Let’s discuss idol-worshippers. Is their belief that little wooden Tikkuu is the Lord of the Universe “knowledge”? Is that “knowledge” exactly as valid as your knowledge of Christ?

518

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Odd. They claim to believe in something they know doesn’t exist?
[/QUOTE]

Yup. I know plenty of people who “believe” to be on the safe side. Now…is that actually “belief?” Maybe not. Maybe it’s lip service with all the pretense and pageantry. But many people who claim they have “doubts” about their faith probably fall into this category, at least some of the time.

519

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
And everyone’s beliefs you call knowledge, and all knowledge is equal? Or some knowledge is privileged above other knowledge? Let’s discuss idol-worshippers. Is their belief that little wooden Tikkuu is the Lord of the Universe “knowledge”? Is that “knowledge” exactly as valid as your knowledge of Christ?
[/QUOTE]
Of course it is…how can it not be?

520

Point of fact, they do. One need not necessarily be dumb to do/believe dumb things as you’re amply proving in this very thread.

As for feeding “them” a sandwich, well, no Bill Gates here, but yes, I doubt a day goes bye that I don’t give away a few pesos and/or buy a couple of eggs and some plantains to feed a bag-lady that happened to take residence in the balcony of a building I am selling next door to mine. Says “God Bless You” to me every time, I simply respond, “you’re welcomed.” You see, she’s not quite right in the head, and if her beliefs help get her through the day, well, good for her.

OTOH, I also have a maid (gaaasp! but it something quite common here) and I’ve spoken to her on many an occasion on this very topic. Not only does she understand it and agrees w/me, but tells me of plenty of anecdotes of corrupt priests in her poor neighbourhood – best house, great meals, plenty of willing women ready to take care of their “every need.” Helping her build a modest little house bit by bit, BTW.

Does that mean I think the whole RCC is corrupt? Nope, I also know some very humble members doing some very good work in the slums and the countryside. One especifically, I’ve taken a liking to, he goes by Padre Tomas, he’s a very old Jesuit with two advanced degrees and a few books under his name. Honest and modest man if I know any. He’ll also tell you how he’s been shunned throught his whole career with the Church…to much of a “revolutionary” for their champagne tastes.

Make no mistake about it, the RCC – and countless other sects of X-tianity here, heck you should see the Mormon Palace those guys built here – are little more than legal scams. Robin Hood backwards if you will.

Bippy,

We’re cool. I’ll bring the munchies you bring the brew.

Beaucarnea, very kind of you to say.

Welcome aboard.