Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

The BBQ Pit
461

Irrelevant–which, as I suspected, means you neither paid attention to your own argument nor read mine.

The difference between the two situtations is that we have positive historical evidence against YEC and we have no historical evidence either way regarding the resurrection. That the resurrection is not supported by any evidence remains true. That it would seem to violate a number of expectations based on our understanding of biology is clearly true. However, since there is no historical evidence that it did not happen (unlike YEC for which we have a wealth of geological and biological data) it resides in a separate category from YEC with the historical evidence that that event did not happen.
I hardly expect anyone not already a believer to accept claims for the resurrection. Your claim that it is an indication that Christians who accept the resurrection while rejecting YEC are adhering to a double standard is false. You may legitimately criticize both groups for believing fairy tales, but your claim of hypocrisy on this point is simply wishful (and lazy) thinking on your part.

You still lack comprehension. I do think you are a troll; I simply do not believe I have (yet) sufficient evidence to take action on my impression. This is not a matter of direct or indirect insult; it is merely a statement of the situation. I do not call you a troll because I cannot (yet) prove it, whatever my personal opinion. I comment only on your actions, noting as I did in my first post to this thread, the specific behavior that is consistent with trolling and then, following your little victory prances, your specific actions that further indicate trolling. You may take whatever insult you wish from my comments. Aside from the hassle of making sure you don’t step over the line in your attacks on other posters in GD, I do not find you worth much consideration in any event. Be insulted. Don’t be insulted. Either case is fine. (Just make sure you rein in your desire to make personal attacks in GD.)

Of course, not. Part of your technique is to attempt to portray your target as deeply flawed for all time. It remains true, however, that I declined to engage in discussions of belief at a period when my only serious opponents would have been a couple of Fundy high schoolers and one incoherent anti-semite. Given that I chose not to engage in belief discussions with them, your insinuation that I have always been “afraid” to engage in discussions is just silly and your attempts to embarrass me into engaging you are laughable.

I employ metaphors that deride your baseless boasts of victory and superiority. Live with it.

From your post to cosmosdan:

Actually, my position was that you coyly hide your beliefs. You do this, as other posters have noted, by never actually posting a worldview or a philosophy. This is convenient for you, because you can attack any other poster in any manner you wish without ever being challenged that you have violated your principles (that you appear to lack). In evey debate in which you engage, you actually argue the negative. That is fine as a debating tool, (AHunter3’s observation about “winning” at all costs), but it indicates a lack of an actual position other than a need to win. You are not required to hold a position to engage in debates, here, but I am free to point out how your lack of position makes you appear to lack substance (which reinforces my impression that you are only here to rile people up–which is consistent with trolling).

462

I was of two minds on whether to post this or not, because I believe there is some reason to suspect Tom may have a predisposition to be overly critical towards people who have taken stands against him. That’s certainly a human enough trait, of course, and I wouldn’t dare to claim I am immune to that kind of thing. But I do tend to think that sometimes affects his judgement.
I suggest that, while I consider Tom to be usually quite rational, extremely knowledgeable, and a fine writer, ocasionally he can achieve surprising levels of intellectual dishonesty, as represented in this thread: The U.S. Constitution is deliberately Godless. Discuss.

In that thread and elsewhere, he kept insisting that there were no grounds to believe that the framers of the Constitution deliberately refrained from making any reference to God in that document, even though this was a radical departure from other contemporary official government documents. Yet at the same time, he argues that there was no reason to believe it was accidental, either! As I opined at one point, “Even though I have cited the words of some of the Framers themselves, nothing is acceptable to tomndebb, apparently, other than sworn affidavits from the Framers themselves along with polygraphic evidence to confirm they weren’t lying.”

Consider this speciousness:

Anyway, more to the point of the OP, consider this dubious Mod Hat admonishment. I don’t recall any instance in which Tom has rebuked any of his fellow believers for referring to others as atheists, extreme or otherwise.
I hope I’m not being a hypocritical pussy when I say that I find this kind of bias in Tom’s Mod Hat postings to be uncommon. I personally find it somewhat more common in his personal, non-Mod admonishments and criticisms. In that respect, while not agreeing with every word nor to nearly the same extent, I think lissener has a point.

463

ambushed - When you were admonished by tom in the US Constitution thread, I assumed at the time that it was because you mentioned Liberal’s previous SDMB name, which Liberal was unusually sensitive about, and about which there was some sort of taboo. On rereading it, I feel the same way. It didn’t strike me as being prompted by referring to him as “an extreme” anything. I think it was the name thing.

464

Either you’re reading comprehension really sucks or you ignored my response because it wasn’t what you wanted. Either way, I won’t be writing an essay for you. My beliefs are within my posts. I think an honest debate stimulates the thought process. I have no problem having my own beliefs criticized in an intelligent honest manner, or criticizing anyone else’s.

I understand that. The point I keep making to zealous atheists like yourself is that there comes a point where science fails to explain everything. Argue the objective and the evidence that exists or doesn’t exist all day long. The subjective experience and the discussion of the moral teachings are another matter.

That is irrelevant to this discussion. How about a relevant response.

Again, is it your reading comprehension skills that make you completely miss the point?
I tend to think you’re intelligent enough to understand what I’m saying, but in your eagerness to do your “I win” dance you’ve developed a technique of simply avoiding and redirecting the issues you don’t care to discuss. That’s your prerogative. That’s a form of debate I’m not interested in.
Yes when it comes to the belief systems I described that exist in everyone we each have reasons that prompt our choices and actions. Setting aside the totally mundane when we make a moral or value judgement it is faith, fitting the text I quoted. It’s a fact of our humanity. When removing the special protected status of religious belief we put this form of faith on an even playing field for the atheist and the believer.

I certainly would argue that no one should pawn off the responsibility of their choices to any book. I think when we look at people’s actions we see that both the believer and the non believer are capable of moral and immoral acts. I don’t believe religious faith is the root cause. We must look deeper than that. What did you make of the last few sections of Sam’s book dealing with spiritualism?

You accuse people of being irrational for believing something without evidence simply because they want to believe it or wish it were true. Your connection between the hateful acts of Christian fundies and more liberal Christians is an example of exactly that. There’s no real evidence yet you state it as fact or as a justification for your own criticism of others, as if you are on some important crusade. You fail to see or acknowledge that you do exactly what you smugly criticize in others. That is hypocrisy. Clear enough?

And that was my humorous way of letting you know I’m not interested in going off on that tangent.

Sure, Christians and other humans use rationalization and justification to excuse certain actions.
It is not up to you to judge the sincerity of anyone in their interpretation of scripture but you’re welcome to that opinion. keeping in mind that’s all it is.

465

badchad:

:confused:

You just restated my gripe. Is it that you don’t understand why it constitutes a gripe?

466

I have chosen not to respond to those last questions because you have been unable to understand the other answers that I have given to you.

Anyone can quote scriptures and be an “expert” using BibleGate. That serves no purpose here.

Since you “would really like to respond to” my criticisms, and I have already answered several questions from you, feel free not to use any more excuses for not explaining your irrationality.

Of course, you don’t have to answer questions if you really don’t want to.

467

Does this mean you get to win if he doesn’t?

468

Nyah. No game. No race.

There is no way badchad can know conclusively what is in the minds of others. But he draws conclusions, nevertheless, and makes them part of his argument. That makes his arguments irrational.

I guess the topic is new for him, but not for me. It takes me back to discussions that I participated in 45 years ago – only I was a mite less relaxed about my beliefs then. Interesting arguments can be made and well-debated.

I’ve been lucky. The jagged edges are gone – shaped by storms, like sea glass. I’ve said what I believe is true – for me, anyway. I’ve acknowledged that I could be wrong. There’s no argument from me about what to believe.

But badchad needs to work on making sense. He should quit using (and misusing) courtroom phrases for starters. They sound juvenile when used correctly and idiotic when misquoted.

469

I very strongly doubt that. Liberal/Libertarian has stated elsewhere that he has no problem being identified with his former handle. See, for example, this post wherein he writes: “No one is confused by my name change.”

470

I thought I remembered several people being warned not to use the old name to taunt Liberal around the time of his “I won’t be around much longer” drama. He posted so much I don’t have the time or inclination to wade through the results of a search. If I’m wrong, sorry about that.

471

I’m not going to dig for a cite either, but you’re not wrong. It did bother him when posters used Libertarian tauntingly. Whether this, which provoked the quoted comment by Liberal

was meant tauntingly, I can’t say.

472

There was a period when a few members (a case where the double entendre seems appropriate) were using the name change in a harassing manner. Lib duly protested that, and as a result they were admonished.

Of course, that was back in the day when “Don’t be a jerk” and “Don’t troll and stalk” were rules that were enforced on this board. A point quite relevant to the current thread.

473

My question is not irrelevant; it just makes you uncomfortable to the point of not answering.

It sounds like the grounds of our disagreement has to do with probabilities. What is the probability that either YEC or the resurrection really happened as described in the bible? It sounds like you are trying to frame the question to make it appear as though the resurrection is considerably more probable than YEC, or if we were to get into it, a host of other miracle stories described in the bible. It seems we both agree that the probability of YEC happening is so close to zero that one would have to be very foolish to believe in it. Disagreements?

With regards to the resurrection you say there is no historical evidence either way, which I would agree, but it seems you are very much understating the certainty of what we know of biology. Bodies that are drained of blood and held at room temperature for several days, not only do not come back to life with any frequency, but physically can not. This does make the probability of the resurrection having happened so close to zero that one would have to be very foolish to believe in it. Disagreements?

Now in both YEC and the resurrection you could postulate an omnipotent being who could, by inserting magic, both raise the dead and create a young earth that appears old. Said being could leave evidence of both, of such a weak variety, that it would only serve to convince the faithful and credulous. Why a god would do either, I can’t say, but belief in the resurrection is in no way more rational than belief in YEC. As such, those who believe in the resurrection are standing on no mountain of reason, for which to look down upon their dullard YEC brothers.

Already accepting the claims for the resurrection does not make it any more probable or rational. Just because a Greek child may have been conditioned since birth to believe that Hector’s body miraculously did not decompose after Achilles drug it around Troy does not make the story anymore likely. Heck, while were at it, what do you think the probability is that there was a man named Achilles, who was, really, unable to be harmed from the ankles up? After all there is no historical evidence for or against it, right? Thereby you have no more reason to reject that story than you do of Jesus’ resurrection, right? Let me guess, you don’t want to answer these kinds of questions, do you?

No it’s not, and no it’s not.

I hate to break this to you, but as your responses above show, you are engaged.

Feel free to do so, as it is not difficult for me to point out that any position of strength, feigned in your metaphor is, well, feigned.

That’s what you said at first. Then, when I spoke of a few beliefs I had, you (as I recall) said they did not count because they were based on evidence.

So what? There are a lot of posters here who have not posted their worldview or philosophy, one of them might even be named Tomndebb.

I have been clear that I thought superstition and ignorance should be fought. How about that for an actual position?

474

Is there no one who will stop this brutal beating? Is the referee blind? I can’t look at Tom’s mashed-pulp face any longer.

475

This is simply dishonest argument. tomndebb said nothing about probabilities, and you know it. He directly stated that there is direct physical evidence against YEC, and none against the resurrection, and he correctly stated that this makes them different. He didn’t claim that this proved the resurrection. He did not introduce the creationist argument that you threw in about God making a young earth appear old.

You are a delusional dunce.

476

What a strange, strange thread.

Is this a pit thread, or a debate in disguise? To be honest, posts have bounced all over the place and I simply have been unable to keep up. Some of the time, the thread seems to be about tomndebb’s alleged misuse of the mod hat while debating. This is what I would expect to be going on in this thread.

But most of this thread seems to be just a continuation of the GD thread that started it. If you guys are going to debate, why isn’t this part of the discussion taken back to GD?

477

Because some people want to employ a style of “debate” that is only appropriate in the Pit.

478

Actually, he didn’t. He correctly stated that there is a ton of evidence against YEC, then he incorrectly stated that there was no evidence against the resurrection. A laughable claim considering that the reanimation of exsanguinated, rotting corpses is utterly precluded by the simplest, most immutable facts of biology.

It breaks down like this:

There is lots of scientific evidence that supports evolution. From this we can infer that evolution is true and YEC is false.

However, there is no evidence to debunk the oft-made creationist claim that God faked the fossil record to fool unbelievers. That is because this claim is unfalsifiable.

Similarly, there is lots of scientific evidence that reanimating dead bodies is impossible. From this we can infer that the resurrection did not occur.

However, there is no evidence to debunk Tomndebb’s hypothesis that, just this one time, God decided to make an exception. That is because this claim is also unfalsifiable.

badchad’s argument is simple. Given that Tomndebb is relying on magic to maintain the integrity of his belief in the resurrection, why does he give people who rely on magic to maintain their belief in YEC a hard time?

Moreover, what’s stopping him from accepting Young Earth Creationism? If he can accept the claim that God broke the most basic laws of biology to bring Jesus back to life, why can’t he accept the claim that God broke the most basic laws of biology to mask his involvement in the creation of the world 6000 years ago?

On a tangential note, I’d like to both congratulate badchad on his tenacity and integrity in the face of overwhelming (although inferior) opposition, and also state that I’ve seen scant evidence of his supposed “rudeness”. While he may certainly be blunt, I’ve never seen him gratuitously insult anyone (the title of his OP notwithstanding :slight_smile: ). He’s certainly received far worse than he’s dished out.

479

Ok now you are more clear. You have no problem having your own beliefs in god grouped in with “the irrational and superstition” and you seen no problem criticizing said things.

[quote]
The point I keep making to zealous atheists like yourself is that there comes a point where science fails to explain everything.

[quote]

Religion and mysticism do not pick up where science leaves off. They sometimes try to, but any answers they give have no certainty of correctness.

It seems to me that your primary defense of faith, is to say that, everyone has it and uses it, and as such, can not criticize it. You did cite the Hebrews verse that said faith was believing in things hoped for. As such it does seem that you are arguing that it is good to believe in things that we wish are true, though in another thread I recall getting you to admit the contrary. As for your claim that everyone uses “faith” I think you either over generalize or use an overly broad definition of the term, which only adds confusion. This confusion, I think is intentional on your part, in order help skirt criticisms of religious faith.

I think in either moral or value judgments one is much better served by judging both on what they perceive true and actually think are true, rather than what one does not perceive and what they hope are true as per Hebrews 11:1.

If an atheist starts believing in things based on faith instead of reason, then I will agree this is equally contemptible.

I think a Dawkins quote fits here:

“The virtue of using evidence is precisely that we can come to an agreement about it. But if you listen to two people who are arguing about something, and they each of them have passionate faith that they’re right, but they believe different things—they belong to different religions, different faiths, there is nothing they can do to settle their disagreement short of shooting each other, which is what they very often actually do.”

I thought his book would have been a lot better if not for the spiritualism talk at the end. I don’t have the book in front of me to make more in depth comments however.

I have no evidence? Fundamentalists whack jobs of various religions from Bin Laden to abortion clinic bombers are always citing their faith in god as reasons for their actions. Nominal Christians do argue that faith is a virtue and will fight efforts to label faith otherwise as many discussions on this board and elsewhere make clear. To see evidence of either all one need to do is look around.

But I believe things because of evidence, as such your claim of hypocrisy fails.

It’s no more of a tangent than anything else we have talked about. I think you just don’t want to answer because you will either have to demonstrate your beliefs are a bit stupid as judged by today’s morality, or demonstrate that you disagree with Jesus, which pulls away from your alluded claim that he is some ever wise avatar of god.

480

I guess what has me confused is what your tone indicates as a gripe, your actual claims sound a lot more like a compliment.