No, I understand what you are saying just fine. Also my bolded question was one of my earlier ones, not one of my last ones. Else I would not have had opportunity to ask it over and over and over. As such you must have another reason for avoiding it. FWIW, I’m pretty sure I know what that reason is.
Thank you.
I notice that you have to change the terms of the argument in order to justify your claim.
We have evidence that YEC did not happen (barring an appeal to Last Thursdayism).
We have evidence that a resurrection can not happen, but no evidence that it did not happen.
Each may be equally unlikely, but the evidence regarding the two events is different. You changed the terms by trying to make my claim regarding YEC unfalsifiable, but I have always disregarded the unfalsifiable part, concentrating on the claims that have been falsified. That there are some small number of YEC adherents who hold to Last Thursdayism is not the issue. Most YEC adherents deny the actual evidence regarding the age of the Earth without claiming that God put fake fossils in the ground.
Anyone can make another poster look bad by misquoting them.
Why does he have to?
Nothing can make you look worse than quoting you accurately.
If only I felt it was a great debating point to demonstrate that the poster has committed a glaring grammatical error. Oh, if only…
It is probably as good a debating point as you have so far produced.
Isn’t evidence that the resurrection cannot happen prima facie evidence that it did not happen? If you were to come across a man who swore blind that his legs had grown back after an accident, you would surely dismiss him as a lunatic, right? Yet the same laws of biology which preclude against the spontaneous regeneration of amputated limbs also preclude against the resurrection of the dead.
While you’re right to point out that the evidence regarding the two events is different, I fail to see how this difference is remotely relevant. Certain specific and immutable biological laws render the resurrection of Jesus as unlikely an occurrence as the six day creation. These laws are based on observations which are just as physical as artefacts from the fossil record.
Now, you’ve just posted that you don’t tangle with “Last Thursdayists” because you don’t deal with people making unfalsifiable claims. Instead, you deal solely with those claims intended to debunk existing physical evidence. Just so I can be sure, would it be fair of me to say that you think “Last Thursdayism” is as valid a belief as belief in the resurrection?
He doesn’t have to. I just can’t see any reason why he wouldn’t.
That’s why they call them “miracles.”
No, they really aren’t. Part of the standard Christian belief system is that God can, if he wants, suspend the laws of physics. Although normally a dead body cannot reanimate and return to life, if God wanted it to happen, he could make it happen. The New Testament contains several accounts of this happening with Jesus. That’s not proof that it did happen, but then, if there were proof, it wouldn’t be a matter of faith. What’s important, though, is that there’s no evidence is didn’t happen, either. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Christians have decided to accept the accounts of the Bible as more-or-less factual.
Now, God could have suspended the laws of physics 6,000 years ago when he created the Earth. But there’s reams and reams of evidence that he didn’t. He might have created the Earth in 4000 BCE, and then created a bunch of evidence that makes it look like the Earth was millions of years older. That’s about as possible as the resurrection. But theologically, it doesn’t make any sense. Why would God place a whole bunch of false evidence about the age of the Earth? What purpose would it serve? Why would God want to lie about this? Scientifically, “Last Thursdayism” makes about as much sense as the ressurection, but theologically, it doesn’t make much sense. Most Christians accept the much older age for the Earth because their conception of God does not jibe with the idea that he plays pranks with the fossil record.
From the perspective of belief, it is not relevant at all. However, it is one of badchad’s great claims against “liberal Christians” that they reject one claim and accept another claim making them hypocrites. I am not about to worry about the theology and I don’t care who believes what. I simply noted that his claim regarding the logic of “liberal Christians” was in error. Since he prides himself on his attempts at logic, that is significant. Since his logic is in error, his claim of hypocrisy is suspect.
badchad:
[QUOTE]
It’s not a compliment.
Look around…this is the Straight Dope Message Board. The views that you espouse could take serious root in here. You could change people’s minds. You could affect us in a positive fashion as a community and be affected in turn and out of the process could come much more formidably coherent understandings of the entire topic area. Yeah, OK, maybe world peace would not emerge overnight as a consequence, but people would listen to you in here. People who do not already agree with you would listen to you in here.
But, goddammit, not if you’re not going to listen in return. By “listen” I mean “make a serious attempt to understand”. I do most vociferously NOT mean “look for weaknesses in our argument”.
You have won all the admiration you’re ever likely to win in here solely on the basis of your ability to argue an unusual and seldom-heralded viewpoint and hold your own against people trying to argue against us.
I was being overly kind, I think, in “recognizing” my complaint in your rewording; it’s the “too relentless” part, but it’s also your self-aggrandizing attempt to step into the role of debate-judge and award yourself points, pins, and matches won.
When I say “grow the fuck up and knock it off”, I mean it in a warm spirit that sees a possible future badchad presence on the board in which we’re open to learning from and understanding each other better, atheist & lib christian & neopagan & biblical literalist alike.
But I do mean it.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
badchad:
Golf clap
Well said.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
badchad:
Thank you for putting that so well.
I heartily agree.
“Today’s morality”? How would anyone be able to begin to determine what is meant by those words!
You begin by saying that you understand me just fine and then proceed to demonstrate that you didn’t understand the last post either. There was nothing in my post that suggested that I thought that your “bolded” question was one of your last ones. I am aware that you have asked it at least three times. The last two times you held your breath, turned a bit purple, stomped your foot and finally screamed like a toddler. Always a “winning” debate style that is sure to impress Professor ruber ruber.
Your irrational mind-reading arguments continue, I see.
Time for me to take a break from this thread. I hate to see good minds wasted on “Did too – Did not” arguments, but it’s not going to get much farther than that as long as only one side is listening and the other side is just going for the adrenaline rush that comes with anger. Of course, that is only speculation based on a little projection from my past. It would be irrational of me to think that I could read minds. 
In that I have no no problem with *you * lumping my beliefs in with “the irrational and superstition” you are correct since you’ve given me no reason to value your opinion.
However, if you decide to stop with the childish attempt at cleverness and actually discuss the issue, just respond like an adult and I’ll take that as a sign that you’re ready
I did not say they did. The honest thing is to say “we don’t know” While not knowing it is acceptable to move forward on a belief with the knowledge that in moving forward we may discover things that demand our beliefs to be revised.
No that’s not it. Just be accurate and specific in the criticism. Separate the physical objective arguments from the subjective ones. If we’re going to remove the special status of religious beliefs and criticize them equally then we need to honestly examine other belief systems. What I see is people like yourself implying that since they don’t have religious beliefs then all their beliefs must be based on reason and rational thought. Ergo Those who have religious or spiritual beliefs are not as logical or reasonable as they are. I don’t agree. I think when you remove the special status you realize that any belief system has an element of faith. That realization should alter the* nature* of the criticism.
There is a difference. Wishing things were true when you have specific evidence against them is one thing. Insisting things are true for everybody with no evidence is another. Choosing to hold a personal belief about the areas that science does not clarify is different than either of those.
What I meant here was in the subjective portion of our belief systems we all , believers and non believers, use the Hebrews version of faith.
of course that’s what you think. So what?
How about this? I think you refuse to recognize the point intentionally because your need to win the argument and do your victory dance is stronger than your need for intellectual honesty. I’m willing to acknowledge I may be totally wrong in that assessment. Can you acknowledge that about yours?
Ahhhhh grasshopper. You are close to the truth that sets you free here.
Do people all perceive the same as true?
But they do, and it is not contemptible, but merely human.
Yah!! Thank God atheists never killed anybody
It’s odd you can refer to Jesus as a condescending prick but can’t recognize that trait here.
Why am I not surprised. It’s irritating when an atheist talks sincerely and positively about spiritualism ain’t it?
Is this a joke? Yes people with religious beliefs have killed people in the name of their religion. Yes, liberal Christians argue that faith is a virtue.
You have made an assertion that the argument for faith by liberal believers somehow supports the violent acts of the more fanatical believers , which is a good reason to attack liberal beliefs. Please offer one shred of evidence to support your assertion is true and the two are somehow connected. If you cannot then I will assume you believe it without evidence only because you want it to be true. I’m waiting…
Well we haven’t established that yet but I’m giving you your chance. HAve at it. Show me the evidence.
well I know. All my posts show how scared I am of you. I’m amazed I’ve manged to continue this long without bursting into tears.
It may be no more of a tangent but it is one more tangent than I’m interested in. You think whatever placates your little ego.
And another one bites the dust. Now, I’m quite sure **badchad ** isn’t *defeating * all these would-be arguers (and then would-be non-arguers) with his debating points. Oh, mercy, no. I’m sure it’s simply tediousness and boredom that’s making them drop like flies from engaging directly with the points he’s now (quite civilly, have you noticed?) been making. There couldn’t be any fear, or cowardice, or intellectual emptiness here, either, could there? Of course not. And now that **badchad ** is (quite wisely, IMO) not giving them much to call him on in the rudeness category either, they’re just finding a further extension of this topic to be, oh, so October of 2006, and we’ve all grown so much since then. Let’s discuss something important instead–it’s not as though this topic is at the very heart of the SD’s mission or anything like that.
Zoe, you’ve gotten your FUCKING ASS KICKED by the master ass-kicker here, so if you want to pretend that you’re leaving for some other reason, I applaud your exit, but please dont tell us that the chckenshit you’re serving us is chicken salad, because some of us still have a taste bud or two left in our palates.
There’s that professorial mien, shining through again.
Perhaps you should peruse a few of his threads.
Then again maybe this
is enough for you. This kind of attitude is what started this thread and shows up repeatedly in his posts. When someone doesn’t agree and won’t concede the argument {or in this case just prefers not to engage} he resorts to snide personal comments of this type.
No, more like the master-baiter. In both senses of the word.
You could even go so far as to say that he master-baits… like a motherfuck.
I’ve seen arguments where someone demands that a gay person justify his or her sexuality. They’ll want the gay person to say exactly what their feelings are, how long they’ve been gay, etc. and pick apart the answers to look for ways they can say there’s something wrong with the person. “Oh, you didn’t have a good relationship with your mother, that just goes to show that you are mentally damaged as a result.”
I think that’s like what badchad does. What he does isn’t as vile, but it’s just as stupid.
This looks kind of interesting. Not accusing anyone here of writing it, but it sounds a bit like the “Christianity is wrong” while also saying “Well, I don’t have any concrete belief/philosophy/etc of my own.”
It’s about Sam Harris. An atheist at heart, and all-knowing. (Contradictory, it seems. But I digress.)
OK, so we have a guy that doesn’t believe in God, and goes so far as to say belief can destroy the very fabric of society we’ve come to expect since the dawn of religion. (Well, even before Judeo-Christianity there were those that believed in a higher being, but again, I digress.)
badchad, apparently, is the supreme entity here. We must listen and follow him. (Hmm, sounds vaguely familiar.) He knows the ultimate truth and is simply trying to edumacate us dullards. We should be ashamed and ridiculed for doubting his wisdom.
The only thing we need to do is get his clear, concise views on the human condition. (As I’ve said before, religion is ultimately a philosophy.)
But we can’t seem to get badchad to state anything other than Christians and Jews are wrong in believing,
Continuing with the article:
Uh-huh. He’s gotten some e-mails. Nay, a lot of e-mails. From fundamentalists that have become atheists based on his arguments. Including a minister. He has a trump card we can’t argue with! The guy didn’t have anything better to do! Religion is fake! A hobby! :rolleyes:
Then we get the kicker. The ass-saving line of “just in case.”
Well, let’s look at this.
Christianity’s biggest tenet is life after death and a reckoning/reward for how you lived your life. Judaism experts can cover that aspect, but as far as Christianity, it’s based primarily on what you did with the time you were given. Good enough for me, it’s my belief, I can accept it.
But this guy wants to come right out and tell me I’m wrong in my belief, then turn around and say he’s not sure what, if any, afterlife there is? If there is no “God/god(s)”, there is no “after death”. There is only decay of biological mass.
He doesn’t know what happens after death, alluding to an afterlife, but he sure as hell is going to tell us it’s destructive to belive in anything that suggests that. He leaves it open-ended enough to backpedal, while posturing as the final word in the matter.
Sounds like the general theme in this thread.
“I’m going to tell you you’re wrong, but never tell you why I’m right.”
badchad, use the above line as a sig, it fits you perfectly.