Chad, now you are actually posting without vitriol. Are you doing this because you think you are about to be banned, and don’t want to be, or are you just mellowing out from a board perspective?
I am an atheist myself, as are many others here, and have some strong thoughts on religion. But I don’t think the way you present yourself is an effective way to promote discussion.
Hell, it might be possible to get a Christian to reconsider their beliefs. But constant haranguing is not the way. Actually, I personally have no real interest in trying to “deconvert” anybody, but civil discussion is interesting.
You’ve got to understand though that the rules are intentionally fuzzy. Whether you break an explicit/object rule or not is a judgement call. Don’t forget the #1 rule of the SDMB.
If you are really interested in continuing to lurk you may want to tread carefully. Getting back on the boards is obviously not impossible, but I don’t think it will be as simple as erasing your cookies.
I don’t think it would. I can speak with some authority on the subject and I really, really believe you’re wrong here.
You are just as bad, if not worse, than violently religious zealots. I myself am 100% atheist, but some of my lifelong closest friends have a lifelong–and usually quiet and private–religious faith.
Your insistance that holding any such faith–even it it leads to a life of peace and productivity–is inherently bad, is simply wrong, and you do far, far more damage than you posit these people of private faith do. Bad acts done in the name of religion are wrong; religion itself is not an inherently bad thing.
None of us can hold the universe, entire, in our minds. All of us must therefore somehow devise a metaphor for the universe, so that we can fit it in our brains. I like to think of that metaphor as a map of the universe, that each of us needs in order to find our place in it. Your personal metaphor is probably closer to mine: firmly based in whatever solid scientific knowledge I am able to gather and understand. That understanding can never be complete, however, so it remains a *metaphor *for the real universe.
Other people’s–Polycarp’s, for instance, or Thomas Aquinas’s, for that matter–is more based in religion.
So what?
Who are you to say that your metaphor is inherently better than Flannery O’Connor’s (a devout Catholic), or anyone’s, to the degree that you feel justified in destroying them?
You are far worse than most religious zealots, and just as bad as the worst of them.
A little dramatic, don’t you think?. badchad is not worse than a suicide bomber. He is not just as bad Osama bin Laden. He does not rabble-rouse on the level of Pat Roberston or Jerry Falwell.
You know what, badchad, fuckwit? Polycarp is a good person; he’s one of the most reliably decent people who post on this board. The fuck do you care if what makes him a good person happens to be different from your own understanding of how things work?
You, on the other hand, are a blight on this community. Sensing a breakdown in what you insist is the only correct value system? How many people have expressed a desire for you to be banned? How many people have come out in support of Polycarp?
What does this tell you?
My very closest friend, that I would trust with any secret, or go to in any crisis, happens to be a christian. He knows I’m an atheist, but we rarely discuss it. He’s never tried to convert me, and I’ve never tried to convince him his view of the universe is wrong. You know why? Because, due to whatever calculus I don’t understand, his view of the universe is part of what makes him the most decent person I know.
You, on the other had, I probably agree with on most things, objectively, but you are not a decent person. You are an asshole.
If I were a moderator (never happen), I would be actively campaigning for your banning. Don’t get me wrong; I find tomndebb an intellectually dishonest, hypcritical bully. But your behavior toward him–and toward Polycarp–has made this board a less valuable place to visit. Your presence is a detriment to this board.
If my opponents want to give me adhoms I frequently respond in kind. If my opponents try to make a reasoned argument, I in tern respond in kind. For example if Monty wants to jump in here and call me stupid and irrational, as he originally did, I’ll respond that he is so, or actually I just called him a Mormon, which in my mind is pretty much the same. If Jodi wants to make attempts to make a reasoned argument about something I say or believe, I’ll use reason to point out where she is wrong. If Cisco or for that matter, most anyone asks a polite question, I will respond in turn. I honestly don’t care that much if I get banned or not. I won’t deliberately break any rules, but I won’t soften my stance either.
That’s been an observation made numerous times before. I think my best example of illustrating my point would be to have you search for some of my older discussions with Polycarp. I literally had to goad answers from him, when it was pretty obvious he was trying to remain silent, and in doing so I got him to admit everything I wanted him too, and I think I countered his every point quite effectively. Of course it certainly did help when he announced he knew who the second coming of Christ was. As for what’s the best form tactics for persuasion, I think the good cop bad cop method works best, as illustrated by discussions in which I was teamed up with Godzillatemple. I would goad people into admitting things they otherwise wouldn’t and criticize them with some flair. He would then come in with an air of well rationed moderation and point out that my criticisms were correct and word them a in a more sophisticated way. Others joined in too, which helped. I can cite the discussion if you care. I don’t think my recent discussions have been quite as fact filled, but that’s only because my targets have learned to go mum a little faster, and I don’t really feel I need to lay out the exact same case I had done before. I’d rather just cite or allude to conclusions from earlier discussions in an effort to save time.
Also, as I have said before, I argue against liberal Christianity because virtually nobody else does. If someone more polite like perhaps yourself or DtC were to effectively take up my cause, I would probably then consider my voice superfluous and would post less frequently if at all. I’ll also note that I am encouraged by DtC tackling the belief in the resurrection of Christ issue in GD. So far most of the points I would have made in that thread have been made by others, however I will be watching to see if Poly’s latest response will be adequately challenged. Or in short, if you don’t like the way I debate, I encourage you to take the debate up yourself.
I think it was Meatros who announced he converted to atheism a short while after I first started my debate with Polycarp and Meatros had earlier been one of Poly’s and liberal Christianities defenders. I don’t know if he would have admitted I was a factor, but the timing was about right.
One thing I strive never to do, badchad, is carry bad blood from one discussion to another. I try never to “win points” in a discussion by bringing in old dirty laundry. That’s pure ad hominem, and I try really hard never to do that (although it’s a pretty universal practice around here). Once a discussion drops off the front page, I only refer to it if its subject matter is specifically relevant to a current discussion; I never rub people’s noses in past misdeeds. I’m sure there have been occasions in the past where I have failed to live up to this “code,” but I hope that they are few and far between.
You said it twice. I usually don’t repeat insignificancies.
I more or less agreed with most of your post, though. It’s just that the rest of it wasn’t nearly as disputatious as what I quoted. Does that make you feel better?
Some rules are fuzzy, rule number 1 is entirely subjective. A good many of the beloved liberal Christians still posting were absolutely horrid (read jerks) in their treatment of His4ever. For what it’s worth His4ever liked me. However, since the liberals Christians pretty much lynch every fundamentalist that comes around, and subsequently gained acceptance from sympathetic infidels, what is left is a disproportionate amount of people who subjectively feel my behavior is jerkish. Yet I haven’t really behaved any differently than they do. In fact look at all the people who have deliberately misquoted me in this thread and characterized me in ways that are untrue. I ask you, is that not in your opinion, a violation of rule number 1?
It was that easy when I was suspended. I’d bet money it would be just as easy if I get banned.
If you think you can demonstrate as much, I would be glad to listen.
I generally agree with you here. Find all threads started by me and go back a few months to the one “What’s the point of liberal Christianity?” I sum up my views as politely as I can there.
As far as the way people treat you . . . I find it HILARIOUS that so many people think their horrible behavior is perfectly acceptable as long as it is directed as someone who is almost universally hated here. There is a strong pack mentality on the SDMB. It’s very immature and hypocritical. I’ll be completely honest with you right here and now: I think you usually act like an asshole, but I think you’re provoked into and act like an asshole as reaction far more often than not. It’s hard to participate in seasoned discourse when everybody in the room is in an unspoken contest to prove they hate you more than the next guy.
Normally I’m the first person to jump up and down on the SDMB-mob for just the kind of thing you’re talking about, but this is a special case. badchad brings nothing of value to the boards. He’s just part of the Idiot Patrol, making sure every thread he touches gets real stupid. He’s not looking for an exchange of ideas – he’s proseltyzing, and being a dick about it.
Maybe you’re right. I can’t say I ever knew who he was until recently. What I can say, though, is that every thread I’ve ever seen in which he participated was a “who hates badchad the most?” party. There are a lot of parallels to be drawn between badchad threads and the “recreational outrage” threads that are being pitted right now.
If everybody really, truly believes that he is a troll, then what happened to DNFTT? It seems more likely that people are just having way too much fun ripping him apart.
Let me ask you another question, badchad: You’ve already stated that you would not be willing to avoid religious discussion on these boards, even if it meant the forfeit of your posting privileges. Would you, for a trial period, be willing to avoid the BBQ Pit entirely? This way you could still participate in religious debate but no one could ad hominem attack you. You also could not ad hominem attack anyone.
DNFTT might be the most rarely observed (and poorly enforced) rule in the whole world.
That said, you’re probably right that people go too far in their badchad pile-ons. All pile-ons, by definition, go too far, but what makes badchad a special case is that he’s never mauled for something innocuous like every other frequent target sometimes is. Virtually every insult and snide remark he receives is precipitated by his doing exactly the sort of thing he knows people hate him for.
It’s the nature of his offense: since he only hijacks threads into being about his own flavor anti-faith vitriol, and since that’s exactly the thing he does that’s wrong, it’s almost impossible for him to receive unjustified criticism on the SDMB. QED.
Ok, I remember that thread. I actually posted to it once early on. I must have been extra busy to have not contributed more to it. In my view you were far too, polite. I think you by the end, liberal Christians there were left with the impression that you respected their opinion. However, as I know, and I think you know, there position is every bit as irrational as that held by fundamentalists. I think you should have hammered them more.
FTR this…
… was my favorite critique of liberal Christianity. It focuses on one mans version Poly in part because he was their golden boy. Also, because I thought no one else could represent their beliefs as well as he. And because I noticed in past discussions that unless you nail a person down, and focus on their specific beliefs, you just get a mish mash of answers where an opponent says something stupid and then all others, and often he himself, claim that while that the thing in questions wasn’t actually believed universally or by them in particular. I think that’s why Tom remains cryptic about his beliefs. He knows he can do no better. You know the principle; better to be silent and assumed an idiot…
I find it as funny as you do. I’m frequently curt with said posters, simply because I think they deserve it.
Look at my past threads. I generally have to endure page after page of insults before issues come out and I start cracking Christian skulls (in a lyrical sort of way). Also consider my thread has over 10,000 views in only 2 days.
I don’t really know how to solve this problem. I see dozens of members ganging up on one guy - many of them only to show how “in” they are, IMO - and no one stopping to try to have a rational discussion with him. No one is asking why.
I find it shameful that everyone is so ravenously out for blood, and will be so happy when they get it. Who can’t forsee the party thread that gets started as soon as he gets banned, with everyone jumping to record their “it’s about time!” in the history books? Is it really necessary?
Either stop treating him like a troll or DNFTT. It’s disquieting to watch everyone try to have it both ways.
