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

[AHunter3]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
A metaphor, for me anyway, works better because I don’t see the concept of civilization…Earth and its inhabitants, if you will, as something that can be communicated with, questioned in the “ask-it-a-question-and-receive-an-answer” way. It cannot have human features or traits. It cannot “do” anything. It cannot care. It can be pondered and manipulated but it is not interactive in any way. It doesn’t think, feel, need, or have expectations. It cannot be disappointed, happy, or angry. It doesn’t love or hate. It just “is.”
[/QUOTE]

Don’t be too sure. Many people would say that of “society”, that it is the individual people who are conscious and that society is a combination of abstractions + bits and pieces of alabaster and electrical wiring.

But a sociologist might say thought occurs in long waves, that cultures develop attitudes and reach conclusions over the course of generations, while individual actually are best conceptualized as blank slates, caused by their cultural context, no more than the momentary DNA through which the long waves of social thought are momentarily exhibited.

I would not make either claim. I believe individual intelligence and consciousness exist (although I do think most people are just sponges and mirrors, absorbing uncritically the thought in the thought-sea surrounding them and reflecting what’s around them without generating much insight of their own). I also believe in the “long waves”; I do see the species human as entity and not just structure.

And I see a valid process of prayer playing a role in making sense of things.

[the_PC_apeman]

Oooh boy! Now we’re veering into free will. Maybe this thread will become interesting again.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
The padded room is a metaphor for life without free will.
[/QUOTE]
I was going to come back to flesh this out a little, but Jodi’s explanation and links are far better than I could have done.

[Kalhoun]

To finish my response from my earlier attempt:

[QUOTE=Jodi]

I’m not following you here. The Bible recounts numerous miracles performed by Jesus and numerous diety acts performed by God, starting with the creation of the earth and all that is in it. There is obviously room for debate as to whether all of these things actually occurred or not, but there appears to be little foundation for thinking the authors did believe they had occurred, and were documenting what they knew or believed in order to encourage people to believe the same. Paul, for all his faults, put much time and effort in to shepherding the early church through some significant growing pains – are we Jews ourselves? Do we follow Mosaic law? Do we let Gentiles in? – and did so firmly grounded in his belief in God, a divine Jesus, and the supreme importance of faith.
[/quote]

There’s room to debate if any of it happened. Historians don’t have definitive proof that jesus even existed (though I think he probably did, as a regular guy). The point I"m making is that if they made up some of it in order to make it more attractive to the masses, why not the god part as well?

Obvious to you, you mean. In fact, this POV, while interesting – God as construct – is pretty well disproven, at least insofar as you allege that’s all God was ever intended to be. God is not a metaphor in any book in the Bible; He is an integral part of the Biblical reality. He has a name, He is an actor (meaning, one who affirmative acts), He walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, He sends his Son in the NT, He sends His prophets in the OT. I have never heard of any evidence, either as theology or as history, suggesting that He was consciously “invented” to symbolize anything other than Himself, the idea of God.

How do you know that? Why couldn’t he be a metaphor?

A ploy invented by whom, and to what end? Regardless of your personal belief in the existence of God, or any god, the universality and continuousness of a believe in the Divine Something would seem to contradict your theory that it’s all just a ploy.

The ploy could have been invented by the people in power who were at a loss on how to maintain peace. It could have been a power struggle and this seemed like a good way to get people to side up. You mention the “belief” in the Divine Something, but belief doesn’t automatically mean it’s real. They could have all been scammed into behaving, tithing, fighting, whatever. It’s worked with other religions. I have no reason to think it couldn’t have worked here as well.

[Kalhoun]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
The padded room is a metaphor for life without free will.
[/QUOTE]

It’s still not working for me. The free will can be exercised and god can still provide padding, so that any choice I make will be a choice free of pain or negative consequence.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Tom–I not only believe that you are an officious horse’s ass, I know it.

Is that statement more offensive than “Tom–I believe you are an officious horse’s ass”? Less offensive? Why?
[/QUOTE]
Neither statement is more offensive because (unfortunately) you included a direct insult in your example, so the insult trumps the syntax.

Let’s go back. badchad has been accused of being insulting in his presentation.
You asserted that he was neither more nor less insulting than his opponents because each asserted that each had knowledge not shared by the other.
Ignoring the fact that you appear to have deliberately ignored badchad’s manner of expression, (for which he has been chided–not his claim to knowledge), I pointed out that your new definition of offensive actually places Der Trihs and a few others in the forefront of being offensive, based on the fact that they have a much higher percentage of posts claiming to “know” that a god does or does not exist when compared to theists who post on a much broader range of topics and who (on this board) tend to express themselves with fewer declarations of having possessed incontrovertible knowledge.

Now, if I were to identify things that were offensive, I would not use your odd characterization and Der Trihs would tend to fall out of the number one spot. Der Trihs is simply a True Believer among Evangelical/Fundamentalist Atheists. Given his perspective, I simply consider his postings style and his evident beliefs, and fail to find offense.
On the other hand, badchad makes a point of using insulting language to make his points. When True Believers make assertions of knowledge regarding religion, politics, economics, race, culture, sports, or whatever, their adherence to their ideologies generally will compel them to make absolutist statements regarding their actual beliefs in those regards. As such, while I recognize that their presentation of their beliefs limits discussion, I do not find their comments particularly offensive.

Your claim that simply asserting knowledge immediately renders the claim offensive seems to me to lack merit. (But if you insist that such is the case, then we are back to noting that the most “offensive” posters on this MB are, in fact, based on your definition, a handful of Fundamentalist Atheists. Such would not be my position, but you are free to hold it.)

[Jodi]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
It’s still not working for me. The free will can be exercised and god can still provide padding, so that any choice I make will be a choice free of pain or negative consequence.
[/QUOTE]

We’re still on “The Problem of Evil 101”. How can a choice made without consequences still be considered “free”? If God makes it so that your “choices” are limited to those without adverse consequences, then you are not truly exercising free will, because some of your choices have been removed from you. You rightly remove some choices from a child in light of their understanding – “I will allow my daughter to choose which sweater she wears, but I am going to insist she wear a sweater because it’s cold out, so ‘no sweater’ is not an option” – but we are not children.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Neither statement is more offensive because (unfortunately) you included a direct insult in your example, so the insult trumps the syntax.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. I didn’t get that official memo. Its awfully convenient, isn’t it, for those who feel free to invent the rules as they go along?

they have a much higher percentage of posts claiming to “know” that a god does or does not exist when compared to theists who post on a much broader range of topics and who (on this board) tend to express themselves with fewer declarations of having possessed incontrovertible knowledge.

It’s also convenient when you can just pull percentages out of your ass, and pompously go on to make further claims that assume your figures to be true. All of these theists don’t claim to “know” the Bible to be true, don’t “know” that God loves us, don’t “know” that he has an undisclosed plan for us? Get real.

On the other hand, badchad makes a point of using insulting language to make his points.

I cut you off before you started pulling out your thesaurus, so I might focus on this bit of nonsense. To you, badchad used insulting language, but to me it was just witty and appropriate. But if you’re going to couch the discussion in your own judgmental and self-defined terms, you win the debate in your own mind. To me, the insulting language stems from those tell me that their unprovable and unsupportable delusions must be given credence in a serious debate.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Sorry. I didn’t get that official memo. Its awfully convenient, isn’t it, for those who feel free to invent the rules as they go along?
[/quote]
You should know, inventing a definition of “offensive” based on an assertion of knowledge.

It’s also convenient when you can just pull percentages out of your ass, and pompously go on to make further claims that assume your figures to be true. All of these theists don’t claim to “know” the Bible to be true, don’t “know” that God loves us, don’t “know” that he has an undisclosed plan for us? Get real.

Based on my (forced) reading of large numbers of threads in GD, I would say that we chased off the theists who would assert knowledge several years ago. Those posters who are most likely to enter a thread and post that they know that there is no god do tend to outnumber theists who post assert the claim that their beliefs are, in fact, knowledge. There are only a handful of posters on either side of the divide who engage in that behavior, but the atheists have small lead. (Remember, we are not talking about whether a poster believes that his or her beliefs are true, only about the likelihood that they will assert knowledge in their posts.)

I cut you off before you started pulling out your thesaurus, so I might focus on this bit of nonsense. To you, badchad used insulting language, but to me it was just witty and appropriate. But if you’re going to couch the discussion in your own judgmental and self-defined terms, you win the debate in your own mind. To me, the insulting language stems from those tell me that their unprovable and unsupportable delusions must be given credence in a serious debate.

I can probably limit my posts to words found in my kids’ Thorndyke and Barnhart’s Junior Dictionary if it will help you follow the thread.

[Jodi]

Stupid hamsters ate my post! Let’s try again:

There’s room to debate if any of it happened. Historians don’t have definitive proof that jesus even existed (though I think he probably did, as a regular guy). The point I"m making is that if they made up some of it in order to make it more attractive to the masses, why not the god part as well?

I don’t think any of it was “made up” in the sense that the authors did not believe it as they wrote it. Again, there is little historical evidence that the Biblical God was an intentional fictive construct. You can speculate that that’s true, but I’m unaware of any basis for that view. To the contrary, it seems clear the authors believed sincerely in what they wrote; some gave their lives for the tenets they recorded and lived by.

How do you know that? Why couldn’t he be a metaphor?

I don’t know it, seeing as how I can’t read the minds of authors long dead. But there’s no evidence for it as far as I am aware. This is your theory; not mine.

The ploy could have been invented by the people in power who were at a loss on how to maintain peace. It could have been a power struggle and this seemed like a good way to get people to side up.

The Biblical God is not actually a great argument for peace. Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” but the OT God seems to have had a different view. There were lots of power struggles, but since little of the Bible was written contemporaneously – as events happened – it seems unlikely it would have been written as contemporaneous propaganda to get people to “side up”.

You mention the “belief” in the Divine Something, but belief doesn’t automatically mean it’s real. They could have all been scammed into behaving, tithing, fighting, whatever. It’s worked with other religions. I have no reason to think it couldn’t have worked here as well.

Yes, yes, it could have been a great big scam they were all dumb enough to fall for – we’re back to the theory of “believers are stupid, deluded and retarded.” Maybe this is true but – here’s the kicker – maybe it isn’t. I never said “belief makes something real”, but neither does disbelief make anything unreal. At the end of the day you’re no more confident in your disbelief than I am in my belief – and no more able to prove it. The difference is that I admit I don’t know. You don’t.

[Jodi]

All that in response to Kalhoun.

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Would that include the catholic church?
[/QUOTE]

If you seriously think that the Catholic church is just as bad as Scientology, then I really don’t know what to say to you.

(For godsakes, people, BATTLEFIELD EARTH!!!)

badchad, when you admit that you “know you can” pull the big “I GOT YOU!” game, you pretty much gave it up that you’re not here to debate, just to play games.
Honestly, if you people think I only pick on atheists, do a search for these three names:
JerseyDiamond
Joe_Cool
lynn73 (originally known as His4ever)
They were far, far worse than badchad could ever be. And yet, that doesn’t excuse his behavior. Grow the fuck up. If you’re so secure in your beliefs, then why do you NEED to go around mocking people about their’s?

Likewise, slaphead and severus have both claimed to be atheists, and have been nothing but reasonable and courteous.

pseudotriton ruber ruber, badchad seem to have more issues than National Geographic. Fine, you’re right, but you sure seem threatened by the idea that people believe otherwise. Obviously, Jodi, Sarafeena or Polycarp don’t need to put down others to feel good about themselves.

Likewise, Kalhoun, you can’t possibly believe that framing a debate with terms like, “your widespread delusions” or “invisible fairy” is somehow neutral and civil.

Christ on a cracker, I need a drink.

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
No, but it is my opinion that if a believer never said another syllable about religion, no atheist would ever bring it up. We don’t need to. Atheism isn’t about persuading people of the non-existence of God, any more than basketball is about the non-existence of basket-weaving. Life has nothing to do with God, who doesn’t exist, and there are plenty of things in an atheist’s life which it is useful to contemplate. Believers, OTOH, can’t shut their fucking traps for three minutes without bringing their ridiculous God, their foolish beliefs, their nonsensical Bible, their silly practices into the secular life that they share with me. So I respond.
[/QUOTE]

In other words, “Oh yeah? Well HE started it!”

[Revtim]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
If I were also omnipotent, they very well might, and I very well could, respectively. I could make it so Coke and candy built strong healthy teeth and bones, sitting at the X-Box every day burned as many kJ as exercise, and all the knowledge they could ever want or need was beamed straight into their brain. Why wouldn’t I? If I am omnipotent, they can’t be spoiled rotten by such treatment, for in my omnipotence, I can make them unspoiled.

You see how silly a combination of omnibenevolence and omnipotence can be? The only way I can see around that is to say that God wants us to struggle, that it’s “for our own good”. I’ve never heard a better explanation than “it’s character-building”, though. I’d prefer the non-tooth-rotting Coke, frankly.
[/QUOTE]
To analyze this even further, the reason to build character in a person is to prepare them for future hardships. To say that an omnipotent being causes His creations to suffer to build character is ridiculous; the hardships are there only because of the omnipotent God.

It’s exactly like if I were to start kicking my dog randomly, so that he can learn how to avoid being kicked by me randomly.

This is another example of how the people who invented God really didn’t have a good grasp of omnipotence.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
the Catholic church is just as bad as Scientology
[/QUOTE]
Is there anything I can do to get you to shut up? I’ve got money. I’ve got friends in Hollywood. What’s it going to take?

[Jodi]

WTF is up with telling people to shut up? It’s a fucking message board. If you don’t like what a particular poster posts, ignore them, either by averting your eyes or using the ignore function. Nobody around here is ever going to shut up because somebody else told them to. If you’re scraping the bottom of your bag o’ tricks to the point that the best you can do is drag a “shut up” out, blow the dust off it, and pin it up, it’s time to step away from the computer and work on your rhetorical skills.

[tomndebb]

I can’t quite tell which way the whoooosh is going in the last couple of posts.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I can’t quite tell which way the whoooosh is going in the last couple of posts.
[/QUOTE]
Jodi loves me, she just hasn’t figured it out yet.

[fluiddruid]

[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso]
Is there anything I can do to get you to shut up? I’ve got money. I’ve got friends in Hollywood. What’s it going to take?
[/QUOTE]

El Cid Viscoso, that quote is highly misleading. The original quote was:

If you seriously think that the Catholic church is just as bad as Scientology, then I really don’t know what to say to you.

This is really sliding very much into jerkish territory. Please quote honestly.

[El_Cid_Viscoso]

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
Please quote honestly.
[/QUOTE]
This is a weird exchange. Honestly.