I don’t care what “others” have done (you’ll notice I haven’t taken Lib to task, because I haven’t studied his refutations), I want to know what Jodi has done, or perhaps what you have done to refute what badchad has to say.
So, substance doesn’t matter, it’s all about style, right? Do you know anything about how Great Debates works?
Your point eludes me. You don’t like something, but badchad doesn’t necessarily do what you don’t like, so… WTF?
So, again, it’s not the substance, but the style. Ok.
If this post tells me anything at all, it tells me that you are a fucking idiot.
This is a similar tactic to (and one often used in conjunction with) the “I’m taking my ball and going home!” tactic, whereby one either is overwhelmed by the opposition and unsuccessful in attempting to get people to line up in a nice row and wait their turn … or finds one’s self so thoroughly throttled in debate that the only possible recourse other than saying “You didn’t answer me, so I win” is “I’m tired of trying to show you how wrong you are; I’m going away.”
RoundGuy:
Sample 1:
“I was taught in school that [religious halftruth 1] and [religious halftruth2]. What say the teeming millions on this matter?”
Sample 2:
“This is a religion, you have to remember, that so stringently clings to [religious halftruth 1] and [religious halftruth 2] that if either were found faulty by any believer, that person’s entire faith system is shown to be utter doggerel. It is only a matter of logic to show how both religious truths above are fundamentally flawed, and as such the entire religion is a sham. But hey, it’s okay, as long as they realize they’ll never get to Heaven they can go believing in [religious falsehood 1] and [religious falsehood 2].”
Which would you rather respond to over the course of one, two, five pages? Someone who is willing to be corrected and enters a debate without their mind made up already, or someone who presents their view as the only sound and rational one?
Wow, that was interesting. Getting a bit pissed off about this? Well, I was just informing what has been going on as opposed to offering my own opinion, but if you want me to refute the argument, sure. It’s just like every other person has said. Badchad likes this whole law of excluded middle thing, he’s pretty much saying that if you aren’t a ‘true Christian’ by his definition, then you’re no Christian at all, which is bullshit to say the least. Just because one does not take the Old Testament literally does not make one any less of a Christian. There are different flavors of Christians, the ones who might take everything literally, the ones who view the Old Testament as one big parable, and many others who fall in between, but just because they have different views on the Old Testament does not make one of them a ‘better’ Christian than the other.
Now, to address your asshole statement. This is not GD, this is the BBQ pit, now deal. Not saying that substance doesn’t matter, but clearly that was not the main point in question here. The matter of interest is that badchad states his arguments in such a way that makes him look like an obnoxious, arrogant jackass. Then when others stop responding to him because they find his attitude less than tasteful, he claims victory by default. Now, you can fuck off and go lick his bum some more while I go back to my lurking.
With over 11,000 posts, iampunha, I am not about to question the veracity of what you perceive as typical on this board. I do, however, feel comfortable asking you for a cite as to where this has ever occurred with badchad.
Again, I must ask you what relevance this has to the current pittee.
RoundGuy, unless you are prepared to show me where I accused badchad of doing this (“taking my ball and going home”), or even implied that he has done this (I did say that it was a tactic often used by those who also use the tactic Jodi mentioned, but I did not purposefully attribute it to him), I’ll assume you read in haste and perhaps saw something that wasn’t there:) 's ok. Over 11K+ posts I’ve done the same thing too many times to count.
As for what my second point has to do with the current pittee, I thought that was rather obvious. badchad’s writing style on this MB is not something that I (and I am not alone here, as I think has been rather obviously documented:)) find conducive to civil debate. It is not entirely conducive to civil debate to come in with guns blazing, which badchad figuratively does with his “If you’re not a Christian as I define it, you aren’t one at all.” schtick. And if his goal is not civil debate, he should not be in GD in the first place. There are any number of other MBs on the internet whose members are not interested in civil debate.
So why did you bring it up? Oh! I see. Let’s throw a non-sequitor into the mix and see what happens…
See, this is what I don’t understand. badchad is an atheist/agnostic. He has a problem with all Christian belief – whether fundamentalist or liberal. He doesn’t “define” Christianity, he simply reacts to other’s definitions.
The problem, as I see it, is that he has focused on a member, or two, of this board who are well-respected – and you don’t like that.
I still see little fault with his arguments.
—RoundGuy Where the hell are you, dumbass, this is getting quite tedious…
Oh, for the love of Christ sprinkled liberally on a fat-free muffin …
Jodi brought something up. I made a comment related to it. If you’re going to get this bent out of shape over a side-comment, you’ll go apoplectic reading SIMS or IMHO.
He doesn’t define Christianity? In the posts where he talks about how it doesn’t mesh, he doesn’t define at least aspects of it? Where he talks about being required to believe:
Yes, on second look I totally see where your comment that he doesn’t define Christianity is supported by factual evidence. How silly of me to think otherwise.
You’re right and also not totally right. I take issue with his posts to Siege and Polycarp (not to mention myself and Jodi). Were he to take the same tactic and debate those with whom I almost always disagree and/or find myself rolling my eyes at, I would not be posting much of anything different. Assholery is assholery regardless of the target.
You’ve just demonstrated that you don’t know what an ad hominem is, jizz-for-brains. An ad hominem is when your opponent responds with insults AND NOTHING ELSE. To claim that the OP lacked any valid criticisms amidst the insults would be incorrect at best, downright dishonest at worst.
Roundguy, once again, we’re not faulting his arguments. This is not to say the arguments don’t matter, but that’s not the topic of debate. The problem that people have is, once again, that he argues like a jackass.
Also, he actually has tried to define it.
He’s saying that somehow, all of a Christian person’s faith hinges on the belief of this one passage in the Old Testament, which is utter crap. He more or less says that Liberal Christians somehow aren’t actual Christians because they don’t view the Old Testament as the end-all truth. Which is also utter bullshit.
I don’t care who badchad is ranting at, I don’t even know who polycarp is, but regardless badchad’s arguments are stated in such a way that makes it seem like he’s an arrogant jackass. That’s why he was pitted.
Now apologize to me for calling me a fucking idiot, I did nothing to deserve that at all except try to explain to you, in a very non-confrontational manner, what everyone has been saying this whole thread. They are indeed mostly criticizing his tactics, now maybe you should let them “carry on” and go rant somewhere else.
Which is why you never have, nor ever will, see me go anywhere near these forums.
The problem with your side comments is they were presented in such a way that the inattentive reader (such as myself, obviously) could perceive them as attributable to the pittee. That, to me, is an unacceptable tactic in a pitting.
I stick by my comment that he simply reacts to other’s definitions. He doesn’t make this shit up, for Christ’s sake, people really believe this stuff…
Cool. That means I’m at least half-way there.
Look, I’m done here. I will simply reinterate my opinion from my first post: This is a really lame-ass pitting.
This is contingent, of course, on you showing that you indeed are not a fucking idiot. I reserve the right to call you a fucking idiot in the future if it should prove true.
That someone who wasn’t paying attention to what I was writing might have come to a conclusion not based in what I write is hardly my fault. I didn’t deliberately do anything of the sort. I further find the notion that I am responsible for what someone else does due to their own laziness to be an incredibly bold proposition, to say nothing of its merits;)
Regarding your first point, you have some rebuttal for the relevant portion of my post or darkravel’s, given that we have both cited places where he defined Christianity in whole or in part?
He doesn’t make it up, but if he tries in earnest to fully and honestly represent Christianity, I’m betting he got failing effort grades in school. I’m no Christian apologist and I could represent that religion in a more objective and honest light than he seems to be doing.
Yeah, you and badchad share a feat there; you both are halfway to representing the actual truth. You best badchad in that you acknowledge this, though:)
At this point, I’m disagreeing with his tactics. Last time I bothered to follow what he was posting, he was such a surpassing asshole that I lost interest. This entire thread indicates he hasn’t changed his stripes any – quelle suprise. And his tactics, just to remind, are the point of this thread. As the OP said: “Debate the merits of their beliefs all you want. But drop the annoying badgering, idiotic strawman building and no true Scotsman argument.”
Which one would you like me to refute? Here: Let me sum up, and maybe we can cut to the chase.
BADCHAD is not the arbiter of Christianity. His strident and disrespectful insistence that anyone who doesn’t meet his definition of “Christian” is not really a Christian is both pointless and circular – because he’s not the arbiter of Christianity.
I am by anyone’s measure a Christian. I adhere to Christian beliefs. I attend a Christian church. I make a half-to full-assed attempt to live a Christian life, depending on the day. I am by most judgments a moderate Christian. I am fairly well-versed in Biblical study, but am not a Biblical literalist. I freely admit to “picking and choosing” what I will take from the Bible, because my beliefs dictate that its purpose (like any other divine text) is to inform my life, not to rule it. I bring a mind that I would like to think is inquiring to all aspects of my life, and nothing about my faith or my religion dictates I check that inquiring nature at the door.
BADCHAD has decreed that this does not meet his definition of “Christian.” To which I reply: Who gives a shit? Why POLY bothered with him in the first place I cannot imagine. If there is a more specific argument of his you’d like me to address, point me to it and I’d be happy to. I give you fair warning, however, that my patience is limited when it comes to those who cannot maintain basic civility in discussion, and even more limited when it comes to those whom I don’t respect. The former piss me off but at least hold my interest; the latter do neither.
And I don’t see this as a pile-on. I see it as a very richly deserved pitting of a tedious one-trick pony who is a borderline troll in the way he waits in the weeds for one particular poster – ironically, the one least deserving of his mean-spirited jabs. If there’s a little fun to be had at his expense, well, so much the better.
And I do you a courtesy in agreeing to attempt to refute his arguments, if pointing in that way, despite my total lack of respect for him, and despite not knowing you from the proverbial hole in the ground. Decreeing what you’d like to see other posters do doesn’t generally result in having it done, especially in the Pit, where the response to what you’d like to see tends to be that people in hell want ice water, too.
Barring the unforeseen, this thread will still be here when you wake up:)
I’m actually headed to bed soon myself. I have half a linear algebra test to do later today and I assume 5 hours of sleep is the minimum for prepping for this thing.
This sounds like you are saying in your opinion I am right and Polycarp is wrong, but you just don’t like my tone. Is that a fair paraphrase? If so, once we settle this tone thing we can both talk about how we think Polycarp’s belief system is not something reasonable folks like us would fall for?
Polycarp and I made a deal at his suggestion. I held up my part of the bargain, and he didn’t. This makes him a liar and is not a matter of opinion. Whether he is still honorable aside from this is debatable but I’m certainly not impressed.
This is not true. If you read past threads you will see that I specifically tailored my responses to Polycarp¡¦s point of view. When he disregarded the old testament, I did the same, when he shrunk his argument down to only the direct teachings of Jesus I addressed him based on this particular viewpoint too, and still was not at a loss to illustrate his hypocrisy.
No my argument is that if you accept that the bible is full of errors, and you don’t have a reliable method for determining what is true and what isn’t, then the bible is a piss poor reason to believe in the supernatural and eternal live. It’s a bullet proof argument.
That is an opinion but a crappy one. This brings the bible down to no better than the Iliad for spiritual guidance. I’ll admit I think the bible is no better than the Iliad but believing either fallible work is good enough evidence to foster belief in the supernatural or eternal paradise is silly. Also let’s not forget that Jesus didn’t only teach love, he also taught you to hate your family, he said he came not to bring peace but a sword, and last and certainly not least eternal punishment for those specifically not given the gift of faith.
Rare enough birds that I have never met one and I don’t think anyone I have debated here holds this stance.
Now your talking
After enough leaps of logic integrity does come into question, when one directly lies to you the questions become less gray.
Libertarian:
Time permitting, not people like you, just you. Well that’s not entirely true, I’ll ask someone to please bash my skull before I get into a debate with Lekatt for many of the same reasons.
I still think you’re a nut. Still, as I said then, if someone else thinks you argument has merit they can freely take it up and I will gladly discuss it with them.
Alright, this I can’t resist. The bible is a love letter? With all that baby killing, smiting and hellfire? What’s your second favorite, Mein Kampf?
IzzyR:
IzzyR, I think your cool.
iampunha:
Great iam, I’ll correspond with you as I think you are reality based enough to not pull some kind of “god and I are one” bullshit.
I think you only say that because the various claims open to falsifiability have been already proven false. With a precedent of this happening with creation or global flooding I don¡¦t see where you come off believing that Jesus died and rose from the grave to save you from you sins to live forever in eternal bliss is anyway based in reality. Not with a straight face at least.
A bio book tells you nothing of this. Which is not a good analogy as the bible does try to tell how the universe was created.
Ditto, your bank teller probably didn’t try to tell you anything of this either.
[quote]
I do not adhere to what advanced scientific precepts and concepts exist in the Bible.
[quote]
But the bible does tell you about the origins of the earth and where the animals came from and in your opinion, it seems you agree that the bible was mistaken.
And for which do you listen to the bible? How to treat your slaves, what to do to witches, to give all your money away?
Science does not posture a case on redemption and salvation except perhaps to suggest that your conciousness is unlikely to survive your brain matter. Why do you think that the bible makes a compelling case for redemption/salvation? Anything objectively better than because you find the answer comfortable?
Jodi:
You sure have a dirty mouth/keyboard for a Christian. Fast to anger too.
I see you¡¦re of the stone the stubborn child to death type of Christian rather than the turn the other cheek variety. WWJD?
Sorry Roundguy for leaving you hanging in my defense. I appreciate your efforts and like your style.
