While your ego may be thrilled by the attention, the fairly consistant theme is “Yes, we’ve had more than enough”
But there are two different kinds of beliefs: those that can be objectively proved or disproved (e.g., believing the Earth is flat) and those that cannot (such as believing in God).
No, beliefs can’t do anything. As you note, it’s the behavior they shape that can hurt people.
But that’s a different way to judge the harmfulness of beliefs than whether they are objectively true.
What on earth would you offer as evidence of this, evidence relevant to our discussion? If we stipulate that Christianity is false and atheism is objectively true, what evidence do you have that well-meaning atheists (like, say, yourself) do more good in the world than well-meaning Christians (like, say, Polycarp)?
We’re not talking here about the objective truth of, say, penecillin’s efficacy against modern bacteria. We’re talking about the objective truth of the world’s religions. Show me that well-meaning people who adopt a religion akin to Polycarp’s are far more likely to do harm than well-meaning atheists.
Daniel
Put Badchad in his rightful place of honor in the sands of Luxor where he really belongs.
Liberal, IMNSHO, you’re a whack-job of the highest order.
Why anyone would take you seriously – perhaps badchad can answer this for me – remains one of the biggest unsolved mysteries on the whole SDMB for me.
Anyhow, feel free to resume the pile-on, on one of the few posters who’s not afraid to call a spade just that. Meanwhile, I’ve yet to see him lose a logical argument with any of the myriad of polished theists on site. And while I don’t presume to speak for him, I doubt he’d be reticent to rebut any theological/apologetic argument thrown his way.
Mind you, I’ve also suggested to him that his scathing style is/might be doing more harm than good to the substance of his arguments. But that’s not for me to dictate.
Logical argument? Was he the one who said that because Poly is a member of the Episcopalian church, he is a hypocrite because he supports gay marriage while his church does not? Last I checked, that’s an undistributed middle with a faulty premise. What’s logical about that? That’s the sort of rebuttal that he left unanswered lo these many years.
So badchad admits to purposefully badgering another poster for no other reason than because he (Poly) does not hold the same beliefs as badchad but Liberal is a whack-job of the highest order for pointing this out? I think I know someone else aspiring to the whack-job title.
I really wish we could have an explanation as to why badchad has not been banned, when his stated goal on this board is to harrass another poster. There’s been a lot of speculation about it, but nothing definite.
Lovely! And the rest of it was pretty much up to the mark too.
I for one have no problem with a blunt unapologetic style. If you think God belief is ridiculous, irrational, and foolish, then it’s okay to say so. There’s just not much of a debate in there. When it comes to the details of belief I found BC pretty capable of a well thought out argument. It was other factors that caused me to lose interest in discussion with him.
He refused to acknowledge that his take on scripture is his interpretation and other interpretations were valid, choosing instead to claim he doesn’t interpret. For someone who claims to maintain a rational argument I found that completely irrational and illogical.
When I caught him in his own unsupported belief and asked for evidence he merely avoided the subject and tried to change the direction of the conversation. When I insisted he refused and created an excuse.
You won’t see him lose a an argument because of this type of dishonest manipulation. IMO he’s only interested in creating some delusional victory for himself and will slip away from direct questions that show an error on his part.
Of course that’s up to him. For myself, if you set up a pattern of avoiding questions that threaten you then you have no right to demand anything of others.
Discussions of belief are in large part just opinions anyway. It’s hard for either side to win an argument which assumes the IMHO.
The personal insults didn’t bother me much. It’s a message board. I don’t care what he thinks. I do agree that it adds to his overall jerkish perception and is one more reason to not waste any energy trying to communicate with him. He obviously doesn’t care either. Like a naughty child he seems to like any attention , even this thread. “OOOOOOO they’re talkin about me, me ME!”
remember, A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Depends on how you define “harass.” I’m positive badchad wouldn’t claim his goal in life is to make Polycarp miserable and oppressed for purely sadistic reasons, which is what the general conclusion is. He’s simply trying to pin down Polycarp’s belief and when he IDs logical or scriptural or other GD-type issues he has with them (and IMO you’d have to be both retarded and obstinately biased not to) he persists in asking questions, sometimes politely, other times more rudely than perhaps you or I would choose, but always on legitimate GD-grounds (as defined by the standards Tom allows FROM Polycarp and his supporters on GD). His primary goal, I believe, is to have Polycarp explicate his positions at length (and thus demonstrate their weaknesses), but since one can’t compell someone to deliver damaging testimony in GD, his secondary goal would be to have **Polycarp ** cut back very sharply on spouting forth his unsupportable belief system, knowing that when he does, badchad will challenge those beliefs, as he has every right to do in GD.
To term this “harassment,” is simply IMO to reveal a bias in holding out a much higher standard for him to meet in GD than you ask of any other GD-er. No one can make Polycarp respond to **badchad’**s interrogation. Polycarp can choose to retreat into more frequent silence on religious subjects rather than defend his positions in debate. What he can’t to is spout interpretations and doctrine that he’s unwilling to defend in GD.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Depends on how you define “harass.” I’m positive badchad wouldn’t claim his goal in life is to make Polycarp miserable and oppressed for purely sadistic reasons, which is what the general conclusion is. He’s simply trying to pin down Polycarp’s belief…
[QUOTE]
From Badchad:
Polycarp, made him my project and fucked his shit up.
How does this statement square with your observation about badchad’s motivation? Badchad could have made all of his points without the vehement hostility he generates. In my opinion, Poly loses the debate. But badchad’s behavior is just plain jerkish bullying.
And some day I’ll learn to code properly.
Well, “fucked his shit up” is just a vulgar way of saying “I rebutted virtually all of his arguing points.” Again, this is style, not substance. Badchad ** gives you an easy way to take offense but if he were just as persistent, and a little bit less abrasive, I think his content would still bother you. Certainly it would still disturb Polycarp**. In a material way, his abrasiveness is just doing you a kind of favor, but the issues would be far more difficult if he were 50% nicer.
FWIW, I would much rather you didn’t. Heck, my Christmas wish that Liberal would return has been granted - maybe the same with you.
Because your leaving would be a form of feeding the troll. If misfired sperm (thanks, Crotalus) can drive off you or Polycarp, then he has succeeded in doing what he has made clear he wants to do - shut off religious debate altogether thru Internet bullying.
DNFTbc.
Regards,
Shodan
We both owe thanks to **Liberal ** for the phrase.
Hey dipshit. My stated goal is to fight ignorance. In doing so I found it necessary, and I’ll admit a bit pleasurable, to tear Polycarp’s theology a new asshole. Whether he’s a nice guy or not, I don’t really care, but guys sitting in glass houses should not throw so many stones.
Precisely.
Like cosmosdan, few here object to a blunt, unapologetic argumentative style. What we find censurable is dishonest, weaselly argumentation of the sort employed by bad. Despite the “noble” intent some might –amazingly- find in a focused attack on a specific poster’s liberal Christian belief set, it is impossible to discern in such a flurry of calumnous garbage. One cannot nobly slander, evade and lie.
(That last is something you should think about, too, pseudotriton ruber ruber, as you continue your campaign of “intentionally” unsupported allegations about tomndebb.)
Further, I must object to the idea some appear to have that badchad “won” any sort of debate against Polycarp or religious belief in general. What the fuck? What sort of low standards for reason do you hard-headed atheists who believe this hold? The one thing badchad has been able to prove -something anyone with a bible and time on his hands could prove- is that there are many contradictory passages and many statements of Christ which can be interpreted to conflict with modern liberal social ideals. Gosh, well done! I know of no liberal Christian who would refuse to stipulate those facts.
badchad has never shown, in any way, that those inconsistencies and his interpretations of scripture are the message, basis, intent or core values of Christianity.
bad took an anti-fundamentalist argumentation kit to a campaign against a liberal Christian, because the fundies wouldn’t play with him. It’s easy to humiliate a literalist with such a package, but it becomes completely irrelevant when used against someone who’s already considered all of the inconsistencies and interpretations more diligently and passionately than his attacker.
What is it about this that some of you think was a victory against ignorance?
God, your mama spawned one insufferably stupid guttersnipe. Your arguments are like Mr. Magoo navigating a scaffold. If indeed you took pleasure in your attempted intellectual rape, then your only success was to lower yourself to the standards of those you claim harmed your parents. Way to go, weasel.
You have also stated that reducing Polycarp’s enjoyment of this message board was one of your goals.