Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

[xenophon41]

@Lord Ashtar

Please to explain exactly how you came to this conclusion.

This might help explain much of what we read from Mssr.s bad and pseudo.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@Talon Karrde

Like the Mirror Universe SDMB? I wonder what I’d look like with a goatee.

I have a goatee. Does that mean I’m the evil Lord Ashtar?

[DrDeth]

@Lord Ashtar

I have a goatee. Does that mean I’m the evil Lord Ashtar?

Very likely. Do you wear a sash, too? Dagger?

I know I am the evil version myself.
Ah pseudotriton ruber ruber how I envy your vacation, your trip up that mighty Egyptian river, seeing the Pyramids, thousands of years of history enfolding around you…wave hello to badchad, willya?

[badchad]

@Malacandra

You’d have to ask Polycarp about that, though unless you can be bothered to keep a civil tongue in your head I can well understand why he’d choose not to dignify you with an answer. But why do you suppose that “{not} working all that hard to find another {job}” would be incompatible with a decision to choose to trust God for the day-to-day material needs?

I just see a difference in piousness between a monk who renounces his possessions because he is faithful (stupid but faithful), and that of a lazy bum who would like possessions but is too lazy to work for them. I don’t know the details of Polycarp’s position any more than what I stated but I don’t recall him saying he had renounced is possessions because he was trying to follow Jesus, nor do I recall him saying he thought Jesus taught as such, and I did ask him specifically that, once upon a time.

Well, but there’s a question-begging epithet in there, badchad. I appreciate what you’re saying and it’s possible for a coming-and-going argument to be logically valid: “If A then B. If A then ~B. Therefore ~A.” But I don’t consider a lifestyle of Christian poverty to be ridiculous, though I certainly don’t feel called to follow it myself at the present time.

I think if everyone did it, it would bring society into the dark ages, again. Also those (few) who choose poverty generally aren’t starving but living off handouts, often in the form of government handouts. Their leisure comes off the back of both you and me.

And while you might talk of Christ as a man who teaches ridiculous things, directly you concede the possibility that he might be God made man you are obliged to accept that your perception of what is ridiculous might be the wrong one.

I don’t think Jesus is any more likely to be god anymore than I think David Koresh or my little brother is. Also, just because a god teaches things does not mean they are the right things. God’s can conceivably deceive people, and in the bible it says god did.

What’s this “if Jesus did teach this”, badchad? Priming another of your gotcha bombs?

You caught me.

I know the verse: Mark 16:18 (not in the most ancient manuscripts, apparently). But I also know that I am not to put God to the test, as per Matthew 4:6-7.

Not sure if I would call it a test, but rather a demonstration of what you as a Christian believe. How would you demonstrate your belief as Jesus suggests, if you don’t actually drink the poison, play with snakes, and heal the sick? If you want to call that a “test” then you have just inherited another contradiction in scripture. If you want to say that the scripture has been forged then you have to ask, what other verses have been forged since you are admitting that divine inspiration between Jesus saying and you reading has not prevented errors.

Whoop-di-doo. John 11:39 attests that people in Jesus’s time knew very well that a person four days in the tomb was a stinking, mouldering mass of corruption. The ancients were well aware that iron axe-heads don’t float on water even if Archimedes hadn’t got around to running down the street calling for a towel, and that water doesn’t suddenly turn into wine, and that sacrificial pyres don’t burst into flame just because you tell them to. Your attitude of “Our credulous forebears may well have believed this, but our enlightened 21[sup]st[/sup]-century science proves that these occurrences were impossible” is absurd, for were you able to put it to those same forebears they might, were they suitable forebearing, very well say “Thank you, we knew they were impossible; that’s why we call them miracles”.

Miracles stories were a dime a dozen back then, and it seem a less educated population was more likely to believe them regardless of the religion of origin. But today when we as a people are better educated and miracles would be much easier to record, they seem awful scarce. Why do you think that is?

For a little less anger and bitterness in your heart, badchad. What should I wish for other than that you should be received into the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ?

So you are one of those Christians that believes that god answers specific requests? If I don’t show less anger and bitterness will you then consider that evidence against the existence of god or his cares about your requests?

[badchad]

@cosmosdan

I see no problem in criticizing the irrational and superstition.

So tell me, how does your belief in god differ from other superstitions you see no problem in criticizing?

Like most fundamentalists you don’t see your own examples of irrational behavior. Here you are using the faith you have in your own interpretation to commit your own hateful acts and find some justification for them.

Faith, what faith are you talking about? I have reasons to believe the things I do. This belief because of reasons differs from religious faith in which it is encouraged to believe without reasons. Also, what hateful acts are you accusing me of?

IMO when we take the advice of Sam Harris and remove the special status of religious beliefs we come to a place of trying to understand how people come to whatever belief system they have.

It seems you like to refer to Sam Harris a lot. Are aware that his tolerance for religious moderation, and his distain for faith is not all that different from mine?

We can discuss the objective realities and what scientific evidence there is or isn’t. At some point we reach the limits of what science has been able to clarify and each person is left to decide what conclusions to reach beyond that.

Perhaps this is one of the major vices of the religious. They think they need conclusions, even when evidence is insufficient to draw them, leading them on the road to err.

What is it people put first and what is it they truly value? It is subjective. When you start to look at the subjective portion of individual belief systems you discover everybody acts on faith.

Define faith in this context.

What I find interesting and hypocritical in your post is that you justify your own beliefs and hateful behavior by creating an imaginary link between hateful fundamentalists acts and liberal Christian beliefs. Do you have any solid evidence for that connection?

Yes, both groups are superstitious and try to draw conclusions where date in insufficient to do so, which leads to error and both proclaim faith, in opposition to reason, is a virtue. When nominal Christians profess faith (belief without reason) as a virtue, fundamentalists garner a certain amount of strength from this. As a Sam Harris fan, you should be aware of this. Also I don’t see why you should think it at all hypocritical of me to equate two irrational belief systems. Do you even know what “hypocrite” means?

Have you found anyone who claims to follow Jesus teachings to perfection?

Heck no, I haven’t even met anyone who even tries to follow Jesus’ teachings. Most try to interpret his teachings in such a way as to make them coincide with their own desires or the prevailing societal morals. Kind of like you did with regards to riches. While were at it, what are you thoughts on divorce and remarriage?

You set yourself as an accurate judge of what Jesus taught and then set yourself up as the judge of whether others are following your assessment of those teachings. Knock yourself out. It’s only your opinion after all and isn’t all that relevant except in revealing more about yourself.

If Jesus’ teachings are only a matter of opinion then Jesus was a piss poor teacher. With a few exceptions, I really can’t disagree.

[badchad]

@AHunter3

But ultimately my heart is allied with the second understanding of “debate”. And that’s where badchad and I part company. It’s all Death Cage Match, Im-gonna-win, rhetorical wrestling holds; his responses to my posts have invariably been naught but the search for weaknesses, and his own posts move like a varsity competition: OK you have said this, which allows me to categorize your position as a Type X, (pins one arm to mat), now you must either ascribe to Position B on this here (maneuvers knee around back) or you therefore have to accept that your entire balance depends on a Type Y (forces center of gravity around deliberately chosen pivot point) and now your argument is flat on its back, ha ha (pins opponent to mat and slaps canvas)

One might think that if a person’s philosophy can not withstand this treatment, then it’s probably not very good.

Is he succeeding? Is there anyone who, as a consequence of reading these various exchanges, finds themself more inclined to think of the liberal-christian (etc) religious perspective as flawed, or the atheist perspective as he lays it out as clearer and more compelling than you did before reading his posts in these various threads?

To an extent I think I’m succeeding. Polycarp was the liberal-Christian poster boy for a good long time and there were a few people that chimed in to say that they thought he was nuts and thanked me for pointing it out in this thread:

Polycarp did you forget to take you pills?

[badchad]

@E-Sabbath

Badchad and debating points.
It seems to me the man seems to be debating a number of things, at once.
A: There is no god. Also, his only begotten son is not Jesus.
B: Miracles don’t happen, and people who think they might have are ignorant.
C: The Bible is a bad standard for anything, as it is contradictory and contains many immoral standards.

I’d add a couple of qualifiers in their but for the most part I’d agree.

D: You, sir, who claim to follow a god, are a hypocrite.

This should read, you sir who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, but in fact don’t even try to follow the teachings of Jesus, nor often even agree with them are a hypocrite.

E: You, sir, who have tried to debate me, are a hypocrite.

This only applies to those to display hypocritical qualities.

F: I am being persecuted.

That’s not a phrase I would use.

G: I am superior to all of you.

Probably not all.

H: Anyone who follows a god is not a good person.

Anyone who follows god, as described in the bible, is not a good person.

Might be better served to set a point, define terms, and stay within the argument. Cause, frankly, he’s just turned it into a howling incoherent mess.

I’ve found Christians are especially squirmy. Debating them has been likened to nailing jello to a wall. I’ve had to adapt my style of debate to follow their squirms. Still, I think I express myself clearly enough.

[badchad]

@Miller

Again, how will you competition show this in a way that has not already been shown by everyother thread badchad has posted to? It’s not as if he hasn’t been able to adequatly express himself before now. What would we see in this thread that we haven’t seen a hundred times before?

I think at least part of what RedFury is getting at is that as much as various people think my debate style is lacking in vigor, not a single Christian is confident their beliefs can withstand it. As there were not takers, it seems he was right.

Also Miller,the following was addressed to you:

@badchad

Well, lets not forget that you were arguing, or at least seconding Bryon’s argument, that it’s ok for people to criticize beliefs in psychic power but it’s not ok for me to criticize religious beliefs. Now that we have equated the two (or after you have given the idea enough thought to equate the two yourself) my questions for you is; will you decide to agree it is ok to criticize religion (and ok for me to attack Polycarp) or will you take back you endorsement of criticizing psychic powers (and proclaim it’s not ok for others to attack Geller)?

While I am not surprised you ignored my question, how about you answer it now?

[PunditLisa]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

‘TOMNDEBB: HOLDING ON STRONG TO SOME DOPERS’ RESPECT!", “TOMNDEBB: UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR HIS OWN POORLY ARTICULATED AND WEAK IDEAS,” like that, what do you say?

You must have come in late to the game. Though it appears that badchad is ahead that’s only because Tomndebb has lapped him. Twice.

Psst! Don’t confuse verbosity and tenacity with victory.

[AHunter3]

@badchad

Originally Posted by AHunter3
But ultimately my heart is allied with the second understanding of “debate”. And that’s where badchad and I part company. It’s all Death Cage Match, Im-gonna-win, rhetorical wrestling holds; his responses to my posts have invariably been naught but the search for weaknesses, and his own posts move like a varsity competition: OK you have said this, which allows me to categorize your position as a Type X, (pins one arm to mat), now you must either ascribe to Position B on this here (maneuvers knee around back) or you therefore have to accept that your entire balance depends on a Type Y (forces center of gravity around deliberately chosen pivot point) and now your argument is flat on its back, ha ha (pins opponent to mat and slaps canvas)

One might think that if a person’s philosophy can not withstand this treatment, then it’s probably not very good.

Or one might not. I don’t find it appreciably different from Bill O’Reilly “winning” debates by talking loudly and interrupting, or Camille Paglia “winning” by describing her opponents as pathetic and ‘out of touch’. In both cases, it’s not the opponent’s philosophy that either does or does not come out ahead in response to such treatment.

We don’t have a panel of judges listening to participants’ arguments and acknowledging good arguments or carrying on their own discussion as to whether Participant B’s prior statements already address points that Participant C claims have not been dealt with, etc.

Instead, we have you, trying to be both participant and judge, saying things like “I said you had to answer these assertions, and you didn’t do so in a fashion that sufficiently refutes them, so therefore you have lost that portion of the argument. And for not acknowledging that I kicked your butt, you get extra points taken off for pretending that you’re still able to continue making such-and-such claim when you didn’t address those points properly”.

(Says who?)

[Guinastasia]

By Jove, AHunter3-I think you’ve got it!

badchad is the Bill O’Reilly of atheism!

[Zoe]

badchad: They think they need conclusions, even when evidence is insufficient to draw them, leading them on the road to err.

The following is an example of a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge. It is taken from the same post as the above quote:

badchad: Most try to interpret his teachings in such a way as to make them coincide with their own desires or the prevailing societal morals.

It would take magical thinking on your part to know the motives of others and yet you have drawn conclusions and stated them as if they were fact. That is not a rational argument.

Here’s another example. They are plentiful in your writing:

badchad…not a single Christian is confident their beliefs can withstand it.

You do not know that, badchad.

I am beginning to wonder if you understand that pronouncements about the thinking of other people is not in keeping with the scientific standards which you say that you require. But I can’t know whether you understand it or not.

I do know that you fit the category of people who demonstrate that you draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence. And that would make you a hypocrite in a forum where you criticize someone by calling him a hypocrite. That would make you a double hypocrite. Oh my.

I predict that you won’t understand what I’m talking about.

Pardon me. I have to clean my eyelashes now.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Guinastasia

By Jove, AHunter3-I think you’ve got it!

badchad is the Bill O’Reilly of atheism!

Ya mean we can buy [DEL]Factor[/DEL] badchad gear, and he never told us? COOL!!!
I’ll be getting a set of the coffee mugs, a hat and some bumper stickers!

Hey, maybe we could all chip in and get tomndebb a new badchad gear™ doormat (the one he’s using now looks a little beat-up!).

CMC fnord!

[Guinastasia]

Wait, so does that mean that Polycarp is Keith Olbermann? Or is he Jon Stewart?

[cosmosdan]

@badchad

So tell me, how does your belief in god differ from other superstitions you see no problem in criticizing?

There are a few reasons but key IMO is the awareness of what we don’t know or don’t need to know or embrace. What Jesus taught had more to do with what went on inside us as humans. To understand and use those teachings we don’t have to believe in any of the physical “miracles” described in the NT.

Faith, what faith are you talking about? I have reasons to believe the things I do. This belief because of reasons differs from religious faith in which it is encouraged to believe without reasons.

I think we all believe for reasons. It’s a matter of weighing the evidence available and deciding how valid or credible those reasons are. When dealing with the objective we have physical evidence to examine. Dealing with subjective reasons is more difficult. For instance , what reasons or evidence do you have that your interpretations of biblical passages are more accurate than others?

Also, what hateful acts are you accusing me of?

Please see thread title :rolleyes:

It seems you like to refer to Sam Harris a lot. Are aware that his tolerance for religious moderation, and his distain for faith is not all that different from mine?

Irrelevant. I mentioned him on one point only.

Perhaps this is one of the major vices of the religious. They think they need conclusions, even when evidence is insufficient to draw them, leading them on the road to err.

I agree that there is wisdom is defining the difference between what we don’t know but merely suspect, tend to believe, somewhat believe, or strongly believe, for both the spiritual and non spiritual. You seem to feel strongly about your conclusions.

Define faith in this context.

I understand the atheist objection to faith in God as a separate universe governing deity or being. That’s an objective view of God IMO and many of the arguments against religion revolve around the objective.
When we remove the special status of religious belief we must look at all belief systems equally. Now let’s forget the objective for now and look at the subjective.

We each have a belief system about what is good, or bad, right, or wrong. We have a belief system about what we value and what our priorities are. These beliefs that form the basis for our choices and actions are " the substance of things hoped , the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1

Yes, both groups are superstitious and try to draw conclusions where date in insufficient to do so, which leads to error and both proclaim faith, in opposition to reason, is a virtue. When nominal Christians profess faith (belief without reason) as a virtue, fundamentalists garner a certain amount of strength from this. As a Sam Harris fan, you should be aware of this.

I don’t believe that a belief that "God wants me to love my fellow man"lends strength to the belief “God wants me to slay the infidels” If you and Sam do then we disagree.

Also I don’t see why you should think it at all hypocritical of me to equate two irrational belief systems. Do you even know what “hypocrite” means?

Why yes I do. The fact that you can’t see makes me wonder how you define it?

Heck no, I haven’t even met anyone who even tries to follow Jesus’ teachings. Most try to interpret his teachings in such a way as to make them coincide with their own desires or the prevailing societal morals. Kind of like you did with regards to riches.

Some try to interpret his teachings in a way that allows them to smugly criticize others.

While were at it, what are you thoughts on divorce and remarriage?

Let’s just be friends.

If Jesus’ teachings are only a matter of opinion then Jesus was a piss poor teacher. With a few exceptions, I really can’t disagree.

There’s lots of degrees between various well thought out and studied interpretations and “only a matter of opinion” and you should know and acknowledge that. It’s this heavy handed extreme BS that you have in common with the fundies and what makes your opinion less relevant.

[cosmosdan]

@badchad

One might think that if a person’s philosophy can not withstand this treatment, then it’s probably not very good.

Well sure…

and one might think if someone avoids a pointless fist fight then that someone must be a coward, if one’s ability to reason was impaired.

[badchad]

@tomndebb

I pointed out why the specific poor logic you employed was false.

You merely asserted as much, and in no way demonstrated it so.

One may argue that both YEC and the resurrection are illogical, however, you claimed that they were illogical for the identical reasons.

I don’t know if I said “identical reasons” but it seems both YEC and the resurrection are both absolutely impossible, for various reasons, according to science and collective observation. Both would require a miracle to have happened as described in the bible and both kinds of miracles would in theory be possible by an omnipotent creature. Do you disagree? Evidence supporting either is far insufficient given the extraordinary nature of either claim. Do you disagree?

I have noted from the beginning that your posts are consistent with trolling, but that you generally stop short of crossing that line. I then noted, after you crowed about your “victories” in this thread that when you prance around and chant “I won” you appear to have crossed over that line. You have atttempted to attack me on previous occasions and I have not called you a troll. I still have not called you a troll. I only note that one specific activity in which you engage does appear to be trolling.

Well thank you very much for not calling me a troll, that would have been a direct insult. Instead it appears you just think I’m a troll, which you seem to think is more of an indirect insult. This then leads my back to my OP where I said I thought cosmosdan was covetous and you thought that was worthy of your moderating. It’s ok though, you can call me a troll if you want to. Were in the pit now.

I will again note that my posting on religious matters has followed the same consistent approach for a number of years.

I don’t think I ever implied that your cowardly debating style was a recent development.

If, like a nine-year-old who blusters to his playgound buddies that he “challenged” an adult who “refused” to fight him, that makes you happy, far be it from me to deprive your joyless little life of whatever small comforts you can grasp.

That’s good. Use an analogy that makes it appear as if you have all the answers and could smack my criticisms down easily, if only you didn’t have your good clothes on.

@tomndebb

I have not wandered around the SDMB declaring that I have beaten badchad in some sort of philosophical game regarding his beliefs…

I have not even declared myself a “winner,” only pointed out the ways in which he has failed to lure me into his private war on spirituality.

No you just construct analogies that make it appear as though you could win easily, if only you felt like it.

[badchad]

@AHunter3

Or one might not. I don’t find it appreciably different from Bill O’Reilly “winning” debates by talking loudly and interrupting, or Camille Paglia “winning” by describing her opponents as pathetic and ‘out of touch’. In both cases, it’s not the opponent’s philosophy that either does or does not come out ahead in response to such treatment.

I don’t watch much TV so I am unfamiliar with Bill O’Reilly or Camille Paglia’s style. However, we are on a message board here and there is no way for me to shout someone down, interrupt, or otherwise prevent them from getting their point across. If I mischaracterize a position of theirs in this medium they can easily call me on it.

Also I don’t see you coming forth with any examples, or even claims of me being unfair or unreasonable in my method of argumentation, rather just too relentless or something like that. As such I really don’t see what your gripe is.

[badchad]

@Zoe

It would take magical thinking on your part to know the motives of others and yet you have drawn conclusions and stated them as if they were fact. That is not a rational argument.

Zoe I would really like to respond to your criticisms, but there is this question I have asked you several times, last asked here…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7857495&postcount=929

…that for some reason you continue to evade. Why you won’t answer, I’m not sure, but here it is again anyway.

For the fifth time:

What do you think Jesus taught about the afterlife? How, if at all, do your beliefs differ? Be specific please.

[badchad]

@cosmosdan

There are a few reasons but key IMO is the awareness of what we don’t know or don’t need to know or embrace. What Jesus taught had more to do with what went on inside us as humans. To understand and use those teachings we don’t have to believe in any of the physical “miracles” described in the NT.

Ok, cosmosdan but you completely ignored my question. Again: ** So tell me, how does your belief in god differ from other superstitions you see no problem in criticizing?**

For instance , what reasons or evidence do you have that your interpretations of biblical passages are more accurate than others?

While I know you will balk at this, I really don’t think I do much in the way of “interpreting” scripture. I have no need to make it make sense, to make it inerrant or to somehow gel it with my daily life. As such I pretty much take it and cite it as it comes. When Jesus says we should fear god because of the punishments he can inflict, I take him at his word on that. When Jesus says god loves us, I take him at his word on this, just as I would any human who said he loved us but harbored explicit plans to torture most of us for things outside of our control.

I understand the atheist objection to faith in God as a separate universe governing deity or being.

Not speaking for other atheists, but my objection to faith is that it encourages people to believe in things without reason, often in spite of contrary reason, simply because they are told something is true, or wish it to be true. This applies to god for sure, but other things as well.

We each have a belief system about what is good, or bad, right, or wrong. We have a belief system about what we value and what our priorities are.

As for a “belief system” it seems Tomndebb is arguing that I don’t have one, which would contradict your statement.

These beliefs that form the basis for our choices and actions are " the substance of things hoped , the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1

So now you think it is ok to believe things simply because you wish they are true? Don’t you think you are over generalizing if you say everyone forms the bases of their choices and actions on this?

I don’t believe that a belief that "God wants me to love my fellow man"lends strength to the belief “God wants me to slay the infidels” If you and Sam do then we disagree.

If the belief that god wants you to love your fellow man is based only on faith, and comes from the same book where it also says god wants you to slay infidels, and this latter belief is based on faith, then we have a problem. The concept that faith is good, even for the former leads a certain credence to the later. It seems Sam and I both disagree with you on this, but I don’t see how I, or we, are being at all hypocritical about it.

Why yes I do. The fact that you can’t see makes me wonder how you define it?

Hypocrite:1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

So how does either of these definitions apply to my or Sam saying faith is bad or equating the irrationalities of both fundamentalists and nominal Christians. I could see where you might say I was mistaken, but I really don’t see where you get that I’m hypocritical about it.

Some try to interpret his teachings in a way that allows them to smugly criticize others.

Are you applying this to me? I don’t claim any intention to follow the teachings of Jesus. Contrary to you, I don’t even think Jesus was a very good philosopher.

Let’s just be friends.

No no, that was a real question. What do you think about divorce? Is it immoral and if not for what reasons? What do you think about a man marrying a divorced woman? Is that evil?

There’s lots of degrees between various well thought out and studied interpretations and “only a matter of opinion” and you should know and acknowledge that.

Not that I have seen. It seems very frequent that Jesus’ alleged followers (particularly the nominal variety) just make up whatever “interpretation” is most expedient to their desires and go from there.