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

[Jodi]

Sorry!

[Charlie_Tan]

sorry Jodi, I was still on page 2. Disregard my previous post

[Kalhoun]

@DrDeth

I don’t see BadChad as being a good debater at all. Few cites, etc. And, he’s a “one trick pony”- he only comes here to post on one subject and on that one subject he has only one opinion.* That Opinion seems to be that Christianity is wrong. He doesn’t tell us what he beleives- he just attacks your beliefs, and I have never seen him attack any other faith (except in a general way)- just Xtianity.

Sure, a lot of dudes here agree with that opinion, but also lot of dudes here agree with “Bush is an asshole”, however if that’s your only tune here you are generally called on it.

Over all, his contributions here are nearly nil- he’s not part of the community, all he ever does is: comes in beats his drum VERY VERY LOUDLY and not at all well, then leaves. If it wasn’t for the fact that many dudes here agree with his strong atheistic agenda- his rudeness would have gotten him warned, if not banned. (Did he get Polycarps permission to use Polys quote in his sig?)

He’s just not a good Board citizen. I never see him giving advice or help, congratulating others on their good fortune or commiserating on bad luck, or even cheering on a PITing. He has exactly one note, played on one instrument. Over and over and over. :rolleyes:

*In fact he reminds me of Ben. Whatever happened to him?

He tells us what he believes and why EVERY TIME HE POSTS. So what if this is his pet subject? Where is it written that he needs to participate in subjects that don’t interest him? What difference does it make to you? He doesn’t need Poly’s permission as long as he attributes the quote accurately. That’s what quoting is.

[Der_Trihs]

@Contrapuntal

I did not say “illogical.” I said “irrelevant.” Perhaps ‘alogical’, or ‘arational’ would be better. He who controls reality calls the shots. You would have to demonstrate that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ apply to God before asserting one or the other.

Might does not equal right.

@John Mace

Except that the bible postulates more than just “God created the universe”. If the bible is true, then God is not evil. The Bible says that God is good. Are you postulating that good = evil? That is nonsense.

The Bible cannot be absolute, literal truth because it contradicts itself, not to mention that there’s more than one version and translation. God does things in the Bible that I consider evil; if those parts are true, I consider God to be evil. I don’t care if he agrees with me.

[Jodi]

[hijack]

mrrealtime, we’re good. I would have sent you an e-mail but it’s not listed.

[/hijack]

[Contrapuntal]

@Der Trihs

Might does not equal right.

So you say, puny human. The Lord of Creation could quite easily make might equal to right. He could make might essential to right.

I am a painter. I put paint on canvas, wood, metal, etc. Nothing I paint is wrong unless I say it is.

If there exists such an entity who created all that is real, your philosophical pretentions are meaningless. Might could make right on Wednesday, and make pudding on Friday. He could create and destroy reality over and over, at his whim, and change it every time. If He exists.

[DrDeth]

@Kalhoun

He tells us what he believes and why EVERY TIME HE POSTS. So what if this is his pet subject? Where is it written that he needs to participate in subjects that don’t interest him? What difference does it make to you? He doesn’t need Poly’s permission as long as he attributes the quote accurately. That’s what quoting is.

1. No he doesn’t. He tells others that their beliefs are wrong, which is not that same thing at all. I haven’t been paying attention to him- he’s a newbie troll and I got better dudes to debate with (like DtC for example)- but if you can link me to a post where he gives his beliefs I’d read it.

2. It isn’t written, except perhaps “Don’t be a jerk”. It’s just that this is a community and it’s nice to be part of it. Not required, sure.

3. Maybe that’s within the rules, but it’s rude. Quoting it once in that thread is of course OK, quoting it *over and over and over * out of context is rude and stalking.

RedFury: sure, he’ll “win” 'cause his “debating tactic” is to be so fucking rude the other side simply won’t bother to refute him. I suppose that’s “winning”, but it’s like exhibiting such bad sportsmanship that the other teams simply refuse to play with you, thus winning games by default. I won’t “debate” with him as he doesn’t debate- he just name-calls. I’d guess that’s why few others of note here will bother do so either. If it wasn’t for the fact that his opinions agree with yours you’d be able to see that.

[Der_Trihs]

@Contrapuntal

So you say, puny human. The Lord of Creation could quite easily make might equal to right. He could make might essential to right.

No, he can’t. He can’t make 2 + 2 = 3, either.

@Contrapuntal

I am a painter. I put paint on canvas, wood, metal, etc. Nothing I paint is wrong unless I say it is.

Because it’s dead. Mindless, dead things have no morality.

@Contrapuntal

If there exists such an entity who created all that is real, your philosophical pretentions are meaningless. Might could make right on Wednesday, and make pudding on Friday. He could create and destroy reality over and over, at his whim, and change it every time. If He exists.

And he still couldn’t make might = right.

[John_Mace]

@Der Trihs

The Bible cannot be absolute, literal truth because it contradicts itself, not to mention that there’s more than one version and translation. God does things in the Bible that I consider evil; if those parts are true, I consider God to be evil. I don’t care if he agrees with me.

You can “consider” God to be evil all you want, but if you postulate that God is good, you cannot also posulate that he is evil. Any contraditction in the bible can be explained by God being a higher power beyond our comprehension-- which the bible tells us to be the case anyway. But this is a stupid hijack of the thread, so don’t expect any further response from me on this subject.

[nameless]

@Charlie Tan

We have a cause? Do we have an agenda? Can I subscribe to a newsletter, are there meetings? “Hi, I’m Charlie Tan and I’m an atheist!”

Dude, where have you been? Mandatory gay marriage, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others! No god bless the Atheist party!

Seriously though, insofar as I’d like to be taken seriously and considered a legitimate citizen of this country, yeah, I’d say we have something of a cause. It’d be nice if being an atheist didn’t screw my chances for being elected for a major public office, for example.

[AHunter3]

I would have to agree that if the God described by the average tunnel-dwelling, subwaycar-preaching, Bible-pounding fundamentalist is real, that God is evil and it would be a sin not to oppose that God with every fibre of my being.

If the Superman of DC Comics fame turns up in the flesh tomorrow and can fly, bullets bounce off his chest, etc etc, that doesn’t make him worship-worthy. If Vladimir Dracula shows up large as life and twice as toothy, and has risen from the dead and caused others to do likewise, that doesn’t make him worship-worthy either.

[Kalhoun]

@AHunter3

It’s not irrelevant. If you use one word for two different meanings, and one of the two meanings is shot full of powerful emotional content, you’re engaged in a political act every time you use the word in its other context. Whether you intend it or not.

There was a furor an election-cycle or so ago when a political ad showed the word “DEMOCRATS” fading in onscreen in such a way that the word RATS was the visible part as the disparaged politicians’ faces showed onscreen. That’s a much much milder version of what I’m talking about (it’s not like Republicans had decided to use ‘Rats as a nickname in perpetuity for Democrats, it was one lousy ad), but it still got some folks’ undies in a twist.
The classic example would be the word “fuck”. I don’t fucking care if you want to fuck around with casual language and talk about what’s fucked up about in your life or you want to tell someone ‘dont fuck with me’ when they’re pushing it, but a problem occurs when you then ask me if my girlfriend is a good fuck or you point to a coworker I think is cute and attractive and ask if I want to fuck her. Because if you’re going to go around using a word to mean “mess around with uncaringly” and “destroy or ruin” and “do aggressive violence to”, then turn around and try to use the very same word to mean “get some erotic congress goin’ with”, it’s like you’re hurling sewage at sex.
Cunt is a female sexual organ. I don’t give a rat’s ass what your descriptive-not-prescriptive dictionaries may say about it also being a word meaning “disparaged person” or “a tiresome thing” or whatever, the fact remains that the word means the female vestibule, the female erotic parts. So when people go around hurling the word “Cunt!” as an expression of contempt and anger, they’re simultaneously throwing emotional sewage at females and female sexuality. Whether that’s their conscious attitude towards women or not.

You sort of made my point. Just as “fuck” has definitions that aren’t taken the same way as the one about your girlfriend’s performance in the sack, there are definitions of “cunt” that aren’t a direct diss to women. I have already agreed that it’s still a fairly loaded word, but eventually, it won’t be. I will concede that cunt wasn’t the best word to use because so many women are horrified by it (including me when it’s directed at women as interchangeable with “woman” or “chick” or what have you). However…this discussion is less about cunt and more about jesus being referred to in disparaging terms. Let’s stay on task here. If he would have used Goat-Felching Shitheel, do you think this thread would never have been started?

[Contrapuntal]

@Kalhoun

He tells us what he believes and why EVERY TIME HE POSTS.

Since you took the effort to use all caps I assume you meant it literally. Where is the explanation in this post, cited in its entirety? –

• Yes, but Christ was a cunt, too*

[Contrapuntal]

@Kalhoun

He tells us what he believes and why EVERY TIME HE POSTS.

Since you took the effort to use all caps I assume you meant it literally. Where is the explanation in this post, cited in its entirety? –

• Yes, but Christ was a cunt, too.*

[The_Weird_One]

@Sarahfeena

Maybe I am incredibly sheltered, but the only place I EVER hear or see this word is on the SDMB. Not that I have never heard of it before, but the people I come across in everyday life do not use it.

Yeah, I never hear it IRL, either. It’s probably the most offensive word I know (I can’t think of a worse one off hand, anyway) and I don’t think I would ever use it.

[Kalhoun]

@AHunter3

It’s not irrelevant. If you use one word for two different meanings, and one of the two meanings is shot full of powerful emotional content, you’re engaged in a political act every time you use the word in its other context. Whether you intend it or not.

I will also agree with this statement in general. I won’t use the word “nigger” no matter how many people say it’s no longer insulting. I distinguish “cunt” the way it was used by BadChad because a guy can’t possibly be a cunt, so it doesn’t bother me as much. I’ve always been more offended by the word when it’s directed toward a woman because it reduces a woman to solely a sex object, but I will agree that it can be offensive in other ways.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Kalhoun

The fact that so many of you are getting up in arms about an insult that was tossed at a guy who died over 2000 years ago – and whose connection to god has been hotly debated for just as long – is quite amusing. You really shouldn’t take this personally. He didn’t call YOU cunts.

I suppose this was in response to me since it quoted my post. You misunderstand me. I said that you were wrong to say that badchad calls Jesus a cunt because it shows his contempt for Christianity. It rather shows his contempt for Jesus himself. As for why he holds Jesus in contempt, I think I have an idea why (and maybe he said it directly at some point, I don’t know, I didn’t read all of his posts), but I disagree with him. This said, he certainly has the right to call Jesus this, subject to approval by the moderators.

[Guinastasia]

@Kalhoun

You’re not looking at it from the non-believer’s perspective. You’re worshipping someone who many believe to be inherently evil. I don’t care what your feelings are about him. They are in direct opposition to mine. It’s a debate. Biblical cites have been provided to back up the non-believer’s point. If it was someone you hated (i.e, Hitler, Hussein, Carrot Top), wouldn’t have offended you. It most certainly would have offended Nazis, some Iraqis, and a few five-year-olds. It was a colorful choice of words. People need to decide if they’re offended by CUNT or by JESUS as CUNT. If it’s just CUNT, I’m sure another word or phrase can be inserted.

Well, see, here’s the thing-if badchad truly feels that Jesus is evil, then he needs to be able to tell us WHY, and to do so coherantly, rather than just constantly shitting in threads about Christianity. Again, I don’t think I’ve ever seen him post on another topic, and his general hard-on for Polycarp is pathetic and annoying.

The fact that it’s obvious that he’s using the word cunt to try and get a rise out of people is I think the main problem. Honestly, I think if someone else where to use the same word, but do explain why, without coming off like someone who wants to offend as many people as possible, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. I’m not saying you wouldn’t have people offended, but there probably wouldn’t be this big of an uproar.

Look, if you think it’s okay to be rude and deliberately offensive in a debate, that’s your problem. Just don’t expect the rest of us to take you seriously then.

[Der_Trihs]

@John Mace

You can “consider” God to be evil all you want, but if you postulate that God is good, you cannot also posulate that he is evil.

Where did I call God good ?

@John Mace

Any contraditction in the bible can be explained by God being a higher power beyond our comprehension-- which the bible tells us to be the case anyway.

You can’t explain away a contradiction or anything else by claiming logic doesn’t count.

[Kalhoun]

@DrDeth

1. No he doesn’t. He tells others that their beliefs are wrong, which is not that same thing at all. I haven’t been paying attention to him- he’s a newbie troll and I got better dudes to debate with (like DtC for example)- but if you can link me to a post where he gives his beliefs I’d read it.

He’s been around forever. He’s not a troll and he’s the most knowledgeable atheist with respect to scripture you’ll find around here. It’s not hard to find his opinion on religion because that’s what he posts about around here. Every thread he contributes to will have his opinion in it.
RedFury: sure, he’ll “win” 'cause his “debating tactic” is to be so fucking rude the other side simply won’t bother to refute him. I suppose that’s “winning”, but it’s like exhibiting such bad sportsmanship that the other teams simply refuse to play with you, thus winning games by default. I won’t “debate” with him as he doesn’t debate- he just name-calls. I’d guess that’s why few others of note here will bother do so either. If it wasn’t for the fact that his opinions agree with yours you’d be able to see that.
[/QUOTE]
People only stop refuting him when they’re proven wrong. Anyone who walks away from a debate when they still have ammo *simply because their opponent is rude * was never in the game to begin with.