I have never challenged Bible man’s beliefs. I have often pointed out errors of fact that he has posted in an apparent attempt to shore up arguments for his beliefs, but I simply do not engage in discussions of belief, either to attack or defend. I have never considered the debates on belief to be a fruitful passtime on a message board and I have neither attacked nor defended anyone’s beliefs, mine or others, in the years that I have participated in message boards and news groups.
I am sure that most people can infer a lot of my beliefs from my posts, but I simply do not engage in belief debates–that is your obsession.
You, on the other hand, do NOT offer any of your beliefs for discussion. You attack the beliefs of others, but aside from your lack of belief in the spiritual, (are you now claiming that atheism is a system of belief? Can we put you down as a member of the club that advocates atheism as a religion? ), you do not actually express any beliefs, even when you rather rudely demand that others explain their beliefs in order for you to challenge them. The issue of Free Will is simply a philosophical word game you play, hardly a system of personal belief.
Based on the judgement of a moderator, and screw the whiners. In every case, I’d be willing to bet that a poll of the SDMB would find that for every person who subjects mods to abuse for being capricious, there are five who agree with them and fifty who don’t give a crap.
There will never be any complete consensus on what crosses the line of jerkdom; there will never even be consensus on what constitutes a bright-line violation, as the discussion in this thread indicates. It practically begs for people to dance around the letter of the law by saying things like “that is an opinion held only by drooling idiots” and then insisting it wasn’t a personal attack.
The US legal system represents 200 years of refinement, and at the end of the day it relies on individual people making decisions as to what phrases like “probable cause” and “reasonable doubt” mean in a given situation. Yes, there’s precedent and standards of reasoning, but in the end someone makes an independant judgement. That’s pretty much the best we can do, becauase human interactions are simply not reducible to mathematical precision.
Personally, I have no problem with saying a jerk is whatever Tomndebb says it is; put simply, I respect your fairness. More sustainible would be defining a jerk as whatever a majority of mods say it is. They might well be occasionally wrong (IMO), banning a guy I find interesting; but the possible loss of some healthy tissue is outweighed by the definite removal of the cancers. If that seems undemocratic, I have no problem with one poster a month being voted off the island by the populace. Alternatively, there could be an elected board of non-mods that decides bannings.
There are a hundred possible mechanisms, but they all come down to some person(s) making a more-or-less subjective judgement call; ducking this fact by insisting on waiting for a “bright-line violation” simply empowers the nimrods who want to sit in the back seat, point a finger in people’s faces and say “I’m not touching yoooouuuu.”
Actually, what I’d really like to see is the replacement of the jerk rule, with the question of whether or not a poster is a detriment to the fight against ignorance. How do we determine that? See my first sentence.
You have an arrogant style Polycarp. If I had a dollar for every time you called a fundamentalist a neo-Pharisee, or took an arrogant tone with them, I could buy us all a nice dinner.
You don’t need any of us to respect your beliefs to make them clear.
That’s because you and your friends (many who are atheist) have chased nearly all the fundamentalist off these boards. Anytime a newbie posts anything and favor of creationism they get the equivalent of a dialectical gang bang. I’m not saying they shouldn’t get such treatment, but you’re not standing on any ground to give it to them. I just give you “liberals” a taste of your own medicine and point out that your religious beliefs are no more rational than theirs.
False, as I have said before, for the most part I tailor my arguments specifically for “liberalists” not “literalists.” Perhaps you haven’t noticed. When I debate these folks I generally spend a good deal of time asking them questions about the specifics of their particular beliefs so as to minimize misunderstandings. Of course this also helps me maximize the precision of my attack, but that’s not my fault.
I can’t speak for his, but mine is that you can be either a fundamentalist or a liberal Christian, but neither is rational and both are absurd. Any differences in irrationality are in degree, not kind.
Bullshit. Why should I allow for a middle ground that is still ridiculous? Just to appease people? Thank you no.
Perhaps you can’t. I have 8 converts that I know about and this is just a hobbie. Some of them have their own converts. You know what they say about a pebble tossed into a pond.
Polycarp promotes faith as a virtue, and it isn’t.
Minus the superstition, yes.
One of Polycarp’s minions might actually decide to read the bible on their own, and as horrible as it sounds might actually start practicing what’s in it.
Like Jon Edward?
The idea is that otherwise reasonable Christians will see how stupid their religion truly is and then reject it.
I don’t trust them as witnesses, and with regards to experiences with the supernatural it would be absurd for me to trust them.
Yes, as I recall you had a heart attack and had a euphoric feeling while singing a hymn. In neither of which did Jesus speak to you personally and tell you what parts of the bible to trust and which to ignore. That the parts you trust are highly correlated with modern day secular humanism, the morals “of this world” is a bit suspect.
Wow Polycarp that’s very arrogant of you to say. Talking down to a fellow English teacher like that. Why am I not at all surprised?
True, just as there are no arguments a person claiming to have an invisible pink unicorn living in their garage could put forth that are not weak shit. Fundamentalist’s shit is weak too, just for the record.
That he would reject superstition in general and the bible/Christianity/faith in particular.
Do you not think peoples feelings are prone to error and/or their words to dishonesty? Without external verification, why should anyone assume yours or others experience is anything more than imagination, delusion, or deception?
You should not have to worry about what Christians think of you? They are the irrational ones. They are in the position of weakness. If things were as they should be, Christians would be afraid of professing their beliefs for fear of offending you. BTW, IRL I’m regarded as a highly entertaining fellow, and I’m pretty open about my atheism.
I’m better read than you’d expect. To me the contents of your posts do not reflect anything but the most rudimentary of critical thinking skills and indicate that you are just another weak minded minion, who’s life is so shitty that they absolutely have to believe imaginary fairy tails and some afterlife scenario to make it bearable.
Get condescending with me and I’ll give it right back.
See that’s bullshit IMO. Ridiculing paranormal beliefs to someone who holds them, is to them every bit as rude. Why the mulch with the paranormal and the kit gloves with religion? It’s not like people are starting wars over the ability to bend spoons with the mind.
Why should I reconcile that? I am comfortable with the fact, and actually contend that the bible is full of contradictions and is a piss poor moral guide. Your quotes help my case.
You have so much anger duffer. Something really bad must have happened to you to cause this. I feel really sorry for you.
You challenge his beliefs in evolution at least. And you helped to hijack my thread, shortly after admonishing me, and only me, for doing so to another.
Errors of fact do include beliefs. As Bible man’s beliefs in evolution are contradicted by certain biological facts, your beliefs in the resurrection of dead bodies are also contradicted by certain biological facts.
I believe in no gods. I am absolutely sure (as is humanly possible) that I believe in no gods. There may be some gods out there but I am sure I don’t believe in them. Your Christian god, as opposed to say the Greek gods or some deist god, is logically impossible unless you want to start sacrificing some pretty important premises about him. By the same token I’m also absolutely sure that there is a mountain bike in my living room. If you want to call any of these a “system of belief” you go right ahead.
If you want to equate any mundane belief as a religion, that’s fine by me. I’ll define it differently but for the sake of argument I’m sure we can find a common ground.
Sure I do. I believe the bible so full of error it can not be trusted as divinely influenced or even as a decent human moral guided. You can challenge that if you want to.
Back that up. And while were at it, what do you mean by “system of personal belief” and how, if at all, does that differ from any regular beliefs I have.
You’re getting desperate, here. I have never challenged his belief in evolution. I have challenged the misrepresentation of the scientific facts and the misrepresentation of scripture that he has used to support his beliefs when advancing them as an argument. He (and anyone else) may believe in Creationism for as long as they wish and I will never challenge their right or their belief. When they present their beliefs as facts, then I will challenge their presentation of statements that are not facts.
If you are unable to make that distinction, it goes a long way to identifying why your behavior is so troll-like, since you appear to be unable to distinguish between an attempt to argue beliefs and a discussion regarding facts.
Threads wander. “Your” thread (although I should point out, since you appear to be unable to recognize it, that you do not have ownership of any threads), had already wandered due to your sporadic posting. You had not bothered to post to it for two days before Bible man wandered in and it was another half a day before his odd views of the world took it off in another direction. And while I certainly engaged him in discussion, there were several other posters (in your conspicuous absence) who were actually moving the thread off after you abandoned it.
Stuff happens; get over it (and yourself).
In contrast, the thread that you interrupted was moving along a particular course when you showed up to blow up the tracks and try to claim it for your own little project.
While errors of fact have an effect on belief, I never argue the belief. Your inability to distinguish the two is not my problem.
Your second point indicates one of your classic logical errors. The evidence against Creationism is a historical record, not a biological one. The is no biological “proof” against Creationist views, only historical evidence that events did not occur in six days, 6,000 years ago. The only reason that they appear as “proofs” to most people is that both sides of the argument reject Last Thursdayism as being a dead-end philosophical construct. Similarly, there is no biological mechanism to explain physical resurrection, but there is no “proof” that it could not happen, only the continuing evidence that it does not occur on a regular basis. When you make these sorts of logical errors, then boast of having quashed your opposition, you simply look silly.
You hold that as a belief? So you do not actually think that you have evidence for this idea? You only hold it as a belief? Interesting.
For all practical purposes it’s same thing. Time and again you undermine the evidence for his beliefs, which is pretty much the best way of challenging his beliefs.
So you’re kind of like me then, cool. I think that Christians can believe in god as long as they wish I will never challenge their right or their belief. I just undermine their evidence and when they present their beliefs as facts I will then challenge that presentation. I might even characterize their, and your, beliefs as childish but I would never say you should not have the right to hold your belief. I’m glad we got that straight.
No no, I got you now, were cool.
There’s no difference Tom. Either a thread can move to different courses or it can’t. I personally think it should be able to go where it wants but you bent over backwards to give me crap on the first, when the original poster had already thanked me for my reply, and yet had no problem helping to blow my thread off course when you could have asked Bible man to start yet another evolution thread. Also what do you mean by my “conspicuous absence?”
Your inability to equate the two is your problem.
Your belief in the Christian god is one of yours. Another is hiding your beliefs behind arguments of semantics.
Fine, then As Bible man’s beliefs in evolution are contradicted by certain historical facts, your beliefs in the resurrection of dead bodies are also contradicted by certain chemical/biological facts. Better?
You keep quoting the word “proofs” as though I used it, when I didn’t. I’m generally more inclined to use the word evidence. You can talk about philosophical constructs all you want but evidence, fossils, geological, DNA, etc, points in favor of evolution, nothing points in favor of 6 day creation.
Very good. So you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus just because you have no proof that it could not have once happened and your parents told you it did. How can you rationally hold to that and decide to believe in evolution. You know there is no “proof” that god didn’t just create the universe with starlight already in flight and fossils already in place to fool the faithless like you and me, allowing only true believers like Bible man access to heaven.
When you go out of your way to avoid questions you look insecure.
I should believe in things I don’t have evidence for? Wouldn’t that be kind of dumb?
**Also I asked you to back up your assertion that my stance on free will is just a word game. I also asked you mean by “system of personal belief” and how, if at all, does that differ from any regular beliefs I have.
The straight dope is about fighting ignorance, not placating it. So much as that fight pertains to religion you are one of the cancer cells.
I propose we do so by seeing who can best back up their assertions with evidence and avoid “systems of belief” wrought with contradictions. Of course that won’t make your religion look too good, so I imagine you would not be in favor of that one.
Short on time at the moment. Will respond in full likely later on today or at the latest, tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Roonwit, puff away and be happy. Listen to some Moody Blues while you’re at it. Now that’s what I call spiritual
I may be wrong but I don’t think there’s anything in the Bible against Cannabis – as opposed to booze, which is condemned. Can’t say I disagree there seeing the affects each of those substances has on body and mind.
Duffer, sorry, I don’t speak to pet-rocks. Not that far gone yet.
Meanwhile you’re cordially invited to eat me raw, balls and all. But don’t stop there, eat the hair.
Interestiing query even if I am not completly sure of what you ask.
First off, I never claimed to be in possesion of the “Sole Truth” when it comes to religious matters. Just that I am fairly confident man-created religions don’t hold much logical water once placed under scrutiny. Secondly, I think I’ve already said more than once that if I did – speak my piece to her – it only leads to a quarrel and worse. A split of an undetermined lenght of time. Besides the fact that one of the last things my Mother made me promise her was to try to get along with my sister, such arguments do NOT make me feel good in the least. Thus my current attitude: I listen, bite my tongue and keep quiet.
As for the other members of her family (three nephews altogther and her hubby) I can talk to all three of the guys without a problem, as both her middle son (25) and husband, are rather “weak Christians” if there is such a thing (they are really not that interested in religion and rather go through the motions more than analyze ther beliefs) and the youngest, as I’ve already indicated, goes beyond my own beliefs in terms of conviction in same. Oh, I forget, her oldest, who’s 29, is very much a believer like her Mom. I approach her with extreme care as well and rather not speak about this topic with her either.
So mum’s the word around sis and niece. Not a geat feeling, but I suppose it’s something I can live wih as opposed to living in a recurrring quarrel.
Trust that answers your question and that I’ve understood it correctly.
From 2:00 am (my time) on October 6 through 3:40 pm (my time) on October 8, you contributed nothing to the thread as it moved through several iterations of successive changes in direction, wth Bible man entering the thread around 11:00 am (my time) October 6. When you finally returned, one of several separate internal themes involved Bible man and you did not even make reference to them. Now you want to stamp your foot and claim that I allowed someone to hijack “your” thread.
You really are a whiny little thing.
As to all your semantic games over belief: the difference between our posting styles is that I will not interrupt a thread discussing beliefs to make personal attacks on posters while claiming to hold some higher truth. You do. In “your” (snicker) thread, I made no effort to “correct” or challenge Bible man’s various assertions about what “God” said or what “the bible” said. From the perspective of religious belief, Bible man and I have very extreme differences on several issues. He was perfectly free to expound on those beliefs to his heart’s content with no interruption from me–just as I have never interrupted any of your little harangues about belief in that or other threads. On those specific occasions when Bible man declared a specific physical fact that is contradicted by historical or scientific evidence, I posted information to refute his error.
It is better than your first two erroneous attempts. It is still less than accurate. There is evidence against a six day creation: we have historical trails of events (geological, biological, astronomical, etc.), that argue against a six day creation occurring 6,000 years ago. In other words, we have positive physical evidence that provides an alternative explanation to a cvlaim for a six day creation. The only evidence we have that a person could not rise from the dead is that we have no recent evidence that can be examined that it has happened. I certainly agree that a belief in resurrection is not supported by any physical evidence, but that is different than claiming that it has been contradicted (as in proven false) by science. Why, it would take a miracle for a resurrection to occur.
Regarding logical errors:
You are free to think the former, of course. Your second claim is mere petulance. I have never argued belief and I am not hiding any of my beliefs. I am more than sure that most of my beliefs show through in my general discussions, so your claim that I am hiding anything is silly. On the other hand, my choice to not argue beliefs is long established (and extends back to a time when most of the belief arguments on these boards were intra-Christian feuds, not theism/deism/atheism feuds). Your insistence that every person you encounter who holds spiritual beliefs has some obligation to engage you at your level is silly and you are simply put out that I will not play your game.
A belief (lower case, common use) would be any idea held without actual evidence (with evidence, it becomes knowledge). A system of belief (perhaps we should capitalize it to distinguish the uses of the word belief) is a body of beliefs that inform and impel one’s choices in life. Based on your participation on these boards, the closest you come to demonstrating a “system of Belief” is that you have a knee-jerk response that anyone who expresses a spiritual belief should be attacked. I have never seen you enter any discussion on ethics or daily living or personal responsibilty to set forth principles that you believe one should follow. Your entire presentation to this board has been “spiritual belief=bad; see spiritual belief=attack.” For this, I have not argued for your removal (although you are certainly one of the more boring posters through whose posts I have to wade). On the other hand, my refusal to engage you in your petty campaign has enraged you to the point where you opened up a Pit thread to hurl foul epithets at me for offering a very correct and very mild admonition to your misbehavior. Based on the evidence that I see, you have either no real system of Belief, merely a Pavlovian response to spirituality, or your system of belief is pretty much a shallow and impoverished reaction to other people.
), you do not actually express any beliefs, even when you rather rudely demand that others explain their beliefs in order for you to challenge them. The issue of Free Will is simply a philosophical word game you play, hardly a system of personal belief.