I’m a bad man.
Emerson was a very spiritual man who relied on intuition.
I think it’s reasonable to intuit that English professors would not select a bully to be head of the department.
It is reasonable that a writer and English teacher would be able to detect poorly constructed sentences before they are pointed out to him.
Those sentences speak volumes and so does your hostility. Teaching takes patience, self-control and respect for the dignity of others.
This is just re-inforcing my confidence in your powers of intiuition. Only one person knows that everything I’ve asserted is true, and that person is just takng your reiterated comments as confirmation of your intractability and stubbornness. As I say, it’s all of it irrelevant to the topic of the thread, but so is your harping on my flaws as a writer, as a scholar, as a person. If I assert that I’m six feet tall and blue-eyed, why dont you tell me what a fucking liar I’m being about that, too? I get a kick out of being told I’m lying when I know I’m not. I assures me that I’m right on target.
**
Zoe, ** keep telling me more about RWE, and how he’d be on your side in this discussion. I’m loving it. Zoe, if you think teaching takes patience, self-control and respect for the dignity of others, Christianity demands all these things (and specifies the number of times you’re supposed to display such qualities) which you are choosing not to display here. What, you say you don’t have to follow Christ’s commandments on the SDMB? Or is that you get to follow them when it’s convenient for you to? If I’m intutiively a poor teacher, though you haven’t seen me in the classroom, you’re a far worse Christian, and I *have * seen you supposedly practicing your Christianity poorly. Or is that somehow unfair, for me to ask to exhibit Christian patience and self-control and respect for the dignity of others? You (and all of you hypocrites) are making badchad’s case for him, the more gleefully you pile on me.
Oh, and I can of course nitpick grammar, at least as well as you can. I’ve chosen not to do so in the interest of civility and respect for others. But if you type out a request that I do so, because it is civil and decent (which would be why you’re doing it, utterly irrelevantly to my posts), I’ll be glad to. Here, cut and paste: “I request that **Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber ** point out any grammatical errors or other solecisms I commit in my posts, whether relevant or not to the topic at hand, because I think doing so is a fine practice in general on the SDMB.” Make a sig line of it, and then we can continue this tack. Or else STFU, okay?
I suppose you are right, but we theists run the same risk having Bible Man posting on this board. It does make it awkward when the poster in question ONLY posts on one subject, making their atheism inextricably associated with their assholery, I definitely get that point.
Maybe you’re right about one thing, Finn Again: Maybe I am making this all up. You’ll never know. Only I will. So you go through life claiming that I’m making something out of nothing, and everything else I’m saying is false. And I’ll go through life KNOWING that eveything Ive claimed is true. But the the thing you’re right about is that it hardly is worth my effort in trying to claim credentials here, because if I didn’t respond to their people who brought up my background, you’d be gleefully claiming that that proves I was lying in the other threads where I alluded to them, and when I do respond, you claim that it’s “pure fiction.” So I’m wasting my effort, trying to respond to you. That is so, and it doesnt reflect well on you or your ilk, but I’m done defending. You can claim what you like about me, claim what you like about my manliness, or that of my profession generally, and I’ll try my best to ignore it.
You’re one solid ground here, anyway–no one can actually prove anything on the SDMB about himself without sacrificing his anonymity, so you can attack with impunity. Now, sticking to an argument might be a new course for you to sail, so let’s see you do that for a change.
Oooh…PLAYGIRL. Now I’m impressed.
If you think that you are putting to rest Zoe’s suspicion that you are not actually an English professor by futher boasting about your professional writing credentials (very bad form when participating in an activity where we all need to express ourselves through the written word, BTW), I think you are off the mark. In actuality, it makes me wonder even more if what you are saying could possibly be true, since a person who is so “rabid, gullible, and undisciplined,” to use Zoe’s rather accurate words, seems even less likely to have had the honor of being elected to department chair bestowed upon them as they are to be an English professor in the first place. I suppose that in your real life, you may be reasonable, logical, and erudite, but if your true personality is anything like what you display on this board, I can’t help but wonder what on earth your colleagues’ motivations might be…maybe to get you as far away from the students as they can?
That’s a real burn in a thread where no one is what one would call a fundamentalist or “Bible” Christian. Sure, all the athiests and liberal Christians are going to send their kids to Oral Roberts.
Sure, that’s why they have me teaching the senior English majors–because I’m so awful in the classroom. Look, for the last time, I didnt bring up the subejct of my credentials at all–I just responded to people introducing entirely gratuitously the subject of what I do for a living (to cast doubts on my truthfulness) or to nitpick (usually incorrectly) the grammar of my posts (to make some foolish point about the content of my posts). As I say, it’s a losing game to respond on this level, because to do so is to give it credence, so I’m trying not to be responsive. But paying people the respect of responding to their charges is a deeply ingrained habit, and I hope you’ll help me overcome my responsiveness.
I mentioned PLAYGIRL only to counter the anticipated claim that maybe I write only for specialized academic audiences, not impress you with the august reputation of a skin magazine, just that it’s a competitive market that is trying to reach the average reader and they pay good money for professional writing. Do you think I care that you have your doubts about my prose style? Don’t you think I’m pretty confident in my ability to write prose, and that your objections to the low level of prose that I subject you to has MUCH more to do with the offensive ideas I’ve put forth here rather than the minute nitpicks you’re making or the questioning of my credentials you’re pretending are relevant to this discussion? If you’d put aside your unprovable doubting of my utterly irrelevant credentials, and return to the subject(s) at hand, maybe we can continue this discussion, but somehow I don’t think that’s what you really want to do. Best to pile on me when I can’t, beyond a point, defend myself–that’s sort of what I mean by weak-minded Christian bullying. I’ll even stipulate that I’m lying about every credential I’ve put forth, even that of beng a writer of competant English prose (by SDMB standards) and I’ll even specify that I’m the single worst writer on the SD, if you’ll just drop the subject of my veracity in previous posts on that subject. but I suspect that this is one of the few avenues of discussion that you’re able to seem to be presenting an argument, so that’s not going to be happening any time soon.
For what it’s worth, PRR, I’m probably as guilty as anyone on this, and it’s frankly a strong skepticism founded in the fact that your style of argumentation, in posts intended to be debate/polemics, on this board, leaves a great deal to be desired. For example, your whiny little shot about liberal Christians sending children to Bible colleges is as off the mark as anything I’ve seen. Your position on “rationality” seems to hearken to your own private definition of what “rational” might mean, nowhere spelled out in its implications for the rest of us. (And so help me, if you post a dictionary definition, you’ve just proven what you’ve been at pains to disclaim – anyone can use the dictionary, but what does it connoteim in your usage?)
Now, I cannot give a sweet flying fuck whether you are Chairman of Princeton’s English Department or an auto mechanic – what I have to judge your writing style and abilities at argumentation is what you present on this board. And I hope whatever Ike or Jonathan or whoever paid you $750 for was written far more clearly than your polemic-intent posts. (In exposition, you’re fine; in argumentation, your work resembles a D freshman paper. That’s not an insult; it’s a critique. Any number of Dopers have convinced me I was in error on some point by a well-written argument. Yours are not.)
How’s that coming along for you?
Yes, you’ve demonstrated lots of respect for the people you’ve been responding to in this thread.
No. The half dozen or so posts you’ve made on the subject, including, evidently, posting first thing in the morning? Those too show how little you care.
Yes, confidence. You are just oozing confidence.
At least, that’s probably what you’re oozing.
I love your language you good humble Christian. Of course even if PRR were an auto mechanic that would be a big step up from your lazy ass. I’m sure you could have flipped burgers but instead you chose to rely on the charity of others, both for your membership here and the computer you type on.
Here’s a tip for you…you would be a little more effective in your “response to charges” if you would defend what you wrote, and how you wrote it if that’s the issue, instead of saying “I have a PhD, so I must know what I’m doing!”
I don’t think I’ve picked a single nit, actually…in fact, I’m sure I haven’t…indeed, until my previous post, I haven’t referred to your profession at all. You seem to have a habit of confusing one poster for another, if they have a similar point of view. I guess this is why the atheists are concerned about being associated with badchad…because some people can’t take the time or effort to figure out who and what they are responding to.
I have not said a word about your prose style…it is at the level I would expect to see around here.
So the only people “bullying” you in such a manner are Christians? There you go, mixing us up again.
And, actually, I doubt very highly that you are lying…the arrogant, self-righteous attitude you have seems very much what I would expect to see coming out of acadamia these days.
I think you overestimate yourself. Either that or you have a poor concept of what biblical knowledge really is. Having read the KJV and being familiar with all the scriptures relating to your favorite arguments is not biblical knowledge in any meaningful way. It should include a competent understanding of the history of the bible and it’s books, including popular theories about authorship. It should include some knowledge of the early Christian movements and key players that influenced the collection of books that became the bible. It should include major breakthroughs and discoveries that relate to the Bible and Christianity. Perhaps you know all this stuff and it just hasn’t come up yet. The fact that you tend to use the KJV surprised me since it is widely accepted to be a poor English translation.
I have some rudimentary knowledge in these areas because of my own studies some of which were prompted by folks on this board. On a cocky day I’d guess I have 1/8 the biblical knowledge of** DtC** , Tom, and Poly, and honestly,…you don’t scare me none.
regarding fundamentalist atheists I have no problem at all with people with certain beliefs and strong feelings about their beliefs. Especially here on a discussion board. I agree with **Sam Harris ** that beliefs should be challenged. I think challenging people’s beliefs can be a good way for people on both sides of an argument to grow. That requires a couple of things. A desire not just to win but to truly listen and understand what the other person is expressing and an understanding that our own beliefs, while firmly grounded, can still use some tweaking and refining as we learn new things and have new experiences.
I think you’ve shown that you capable of these things but not good at them yet.
It’s not arguing your points that makes you a fundamentalist or what makes the term carry negative connotations. It’s your continued insistence that your interpretation is the only real one, honest one, obvious one, etc. It’s you’re insistence that you’ve proved your point and your refusal to consider that another poster may sincerely interpret things differently and their interpretation is also reasonable and valid. It’s the way in which you ignore or dismiss passages that lend weight to an alternative interpretation while insisting that the passages you’ve chosen can only honestly be interpreted literally and those doing otherwise must by default be either in denial or dishonest. That’s usually when some snide personal comment comes in. You may be arguing the polar opposite but your techniques are disturbingly similar to Biblemans
If you think that by simply declaring yourself the winner and refusing to acknowledge any other view as valid, or insulting your opponent enough to make them abandon the discussion you have somehow accomplished something positive or proved your point you are delusional. Your statement above indicates that it is more about your ego and the need to win and be right, than it is about an honest dialogue with someone. You might consider that the need to be right and win is a quality you share with other fundamentalists and that quality adversely effects your own ability to rationally consider alternative views. In that assessment I’d love to be proven wrong.
My God, you’re not Stanley Fish are you? Because that would explain a lot.
This little gimmick is way past worn out now.
No you misunderstand. I’m confident in my ability to keep my threads on track or to bring them back on track as I desire. What has me miffed is you being a hypocrite who told me I had to cease (what you described as) my hijacking of another thread, while participating in the hijacking of mine. In retrospect I suppose I should have checked the board rules, noticed that there was nothing written against hijacking a thread, and pitted you for pretending to have authority where you don’t.
Does this mean that you are amending your statement to an admission that you do challenge peoples beliefs, but that you just keep it less personal than I? As for “claiming to hold some higher truth” I would to ask you what you mean by that and how you are defining “higher truth.” I am comfortable saying that I hold fewer falsehoods, or at least not the falsehoods in question.
Bible man’s error being synonymous with his beliefs in this case.
I would say all that is true but it would only take a miracle to create a young world that looked old to fool the faithless. This miracle would be well within the power of an omnipotent god. Do you disagree?
Please. Do you know what happens to a body when it is scourged and later stabbed in the side by a spear? It bleeds to death. Do you know what happens to the blood that runs out of the body onto the ground? It dries out, killing every individual blood cell. This then leaves Jesus as the equivalent of dead meat. Do you know what happens to meat when it is left out at room temperature in less than sanitary conditions? It starts to rot. The heart certainly stops beating, what little remaining blood and oxygen stops going to the brain. Do you know what happens to a brain when it stops getting oxygen for even a few minutes? Ever see a near drowning victim? The brain cells start to die in short order resulting in severe retardation. Jesus’ brain was without blood and oxygen for how long? I could go on.
Yes it would, and it would have to be some whopper of a miracle, the same kind of miracle necessary to create a universe in six days ~6000 years ago. And yet you believe in the latter miracle and not the former. Cause why? Because your mommy and daddy told you so when you were a child, and you later confirmed this by reading it in a book that (as I recall) you admit is full of errors? Grow up.
Yes, I do recall you saying that anyone who plays my game will lose.
So by that definition, when you say I coyly hide my beliefs it might have been better to say that I don’t have any beliefs, and what I do is demonstrate that what certain posters might suggest are knowledge are just beliefs, which by your definition sounds like totally made up shit not backed by any evidence. BTW, how much and what kind of evidence do you think is necessary to turn a belief into knowledge.
Well, by your definition, I don’t think I hold any “systems of belief” either.
No it was your hypocrisy that did that, also I wanted to make sure you knew what a direct insult was.
So you admit you are incorrect in saying I coyly hide my beliefs? Also it seems you think having no “system of Belief” is a bad thing. Why?
Also some things you ignored from my last post to you.
**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.**
What?
Show me where I have defined or ascribed god as the “the unreal” or take back your assertion.
I would say you should look up the definition of abuse and see if the physical punishment of children constitutes that.
I think this has more to do with the definition of terms and opinion on how children should be treated, and has absolutely nothing (that I can see) with my question to you:
A couple of yes or no answers would suffice.
[quote=Zoe]
No I didn’t. That liberal Christians on this board have atheist friends does not make atheists Liberal Christians. Perhaps in the future to avoid confusion of my word “liberals” referring to Christians with non religious “liberals” I should use a different descriptor. Do you think “wishy-washy” Christians or “nominal” Christians would be better?
I don’t, and it’s possible. Are you suggesting that we should all assume our lives are a delusion? If not why not?
Lazy? I would have thought you’d be applauding him for choosing the pauper’s life - it’s as Jesus commanded, no?
No.
Touché. I’m judging Polycarp by earthly standards. By Jesus’ standards, on poverty at least, he’s doing as he should. By my earthly standards I still think he’s a loser.