Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

The BBQ Pit
541

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Hmmm… OK, but after my post #141, the only person I can find mentioning nitpicks over punctuation is you. There are a bunch of other nitpicks that arguably would have happened anyway (and perhaps are even justified in their own right), but I don’t see any actual continuation of my withdrawn point. I only read on a couple of pages, so maybe I missed it.
[/QUOTE]

Welll, among other places, 99 posts after post 141, **Finn Again ** found it appropriate to remind people of “The fact that he has no idea when to use an ellipsis means nothing.” And on this page, see the nitpicking going on over a slightly ambiguous pronoun that somehow negates the speaker’s eloquence. There’s plenty of nitpicking going on that doesn’t come from me, my friend.

542

Well, in that particular case, Tom’s claim is (AFIK) not that Jesus’ resurrection was an ordinary biological phenomenon. Yes, he may have no decent evidence to support his belief in the resurrection, but that’s a slightly different argument. Faced with the argument “Look, dead people don’t just come back to life.”, a believer need only reply “Yes, we know.”

I don’t want to try to argue Tom’s case for him, lest I misrepresent him, but I think he would probably say something to the effect that natural science is correct and complete in what it describes, but there’s just this extra bit that it doesn’t describe.

543

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
One thing you’re not seeing is that the “Laws” of science are not written down in a big book anywhere and the Universe forced to obey them the way the chessplayer is obliged to follow the laws of chess. They’re derived from observation and drawn up as best our understanding fits the facts. Science is silent on the proposition “There exists an entity G such that G is able to cause a dead and decomposing body to resume normal biological functions through an exercise of will”. How would you ever expect to formulate such a law?
[/QUOTE]

And your response to YEC who proffer such a ludicrous argument would be…?

544

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Welll, among other places, 99 posts after post 141, **Finn Again ** found it appropriate to remind people of “The fact that he has no idea when to use an ellipsis means nothing.” And on this page, see the nitpicking going on over a slightly ambiguous pronoun that somehow negates the speaker’s eloquence. There’s plenty of nitpicking going on that doesn’t come from me, my friend.
[/QUOTE]
Noted and in as far as any of that was provoked or initiated by my comments, I apologise again.

545

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
And your response to YEC who proffer such a ludicrous argument would be…?
[/QUOTE]

My response to you is: Please be a little less contentious.

What Tom has been saying AFAICT is that, for all of him, God could have created the Earth as described in Genesis 1. However, there are mountains of evidence to suggest that He did not. Therefore Tom concludes (and I tend to concur) that YEC is a crock. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that Christ did not rise from the dead.

546

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Here’s one statement I felt he expressed pithily and eloquently:

“It is often wrong, and frequently dangerous, to accept beliefs simply because they have been handed down through the years, no matter how many years it has been, from the get go. It is really wrong, when you continue to hold these beliefs even when your own reason and experience would tell us they are wrong.”
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Not so eloquent but well thought out and fairly well expressed. I commented positively on this when he expressed it in the thread and encouraged him to start a thread about it. The thread he started was the more inflammatory

Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief.

Perhaps for brevity’s sake. No big deal. badchad has shown he is capable of a well thought out articulate argument.

Honestly what did you make of the minor incident that prompted this thread? BC does like to draw erroneous personal conclusions about those he discusses with. In this thread he admits he does it purposefully.

IMO he is far more interested in declaring his version of victory than he is in an honest exchange of ideas. Someone correctly pointed out that entering a debate with the goal of winning is a valid reason. I accept that. The techniques to win seem to be ,
resist admitting you made any mistake and if you have to just brush by it quickly
make a big deal about your opponents mistakes including words like incompetent and liar.
stay in control of the argument, That means avoiding or ignoring points that your opponent may have that are valid, while constantly redirecting the argument to areas where you are confident in your own, even if it means changing the subject completely.
and let’s not forget the snide personal comment occasionally to hopefully evoke some inappropriate response from your opponent or to prompt them to abandon the argument at which point the victory dance can be done.

I can only imagine there’s a little song that goes with it. Perhaps
“I’m bad, I’m chad, I win I win again!” repeat, repeat, repeat.

I have no grudge against someone who enters a debate with the goal of declaring some sort of imaginary victory. I also have little interest in playing and think it’s a shame to waste a keen mind. Hunter expressed it well.

Of course this is all IMHO and so fucking what right?

547

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to shut the fuck up about it.”

–Bizarro Voltaire (Attributed)
[/QUOTE]

BTW, I love this and think it’s hilarious. :smiley:

548

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
As can I.

All I ask them to do for me is to STFU about their beliefs, and I’l defend to the death their right to have those beliefs.

If they insist on yammering this silly nonsense to me, owever, I’ll further ask them to offer evidence in their argument’s behalf, and if they lack the courtesy to provide evidence, I’ll thank them to withdraw from the discussion and acknowledge “I’ve got nothing to offer that you reasonably consider evidence, and I’m okay with my total and complete lack of evidenciary support for my wholly subjective system of belief.” Then I say, “Go in peace, and enjoy your day and your life, brother.”
[/QUOTE]

A reasonable and decent response. People show their true beliefs by how they treat others. Their lip service doesn’t matter except to frame the criticism they might deserve. If someone decides to witness to me and share their beliefs they’d better be ready to listen as well. I have much more respect for anyone who quietly goes about their business and lets their beliefs be reflected in their actions and how they conduct themselves.

549

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
My response to you is: Please be a little less contentious.

What Tom has been saying AFAICT is that, for all of him, God could have created the Earth as described in Genesis 1. However, there are mountains of evidence to suggest that He did not. Therefore Tom concludes (and I tend to concur) that YEC is a crock. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that Christ did not rise from the dead.
[/QUOTE]

Have you seen any evidence yet that my Uncle Pete did not rise from the dead?

550

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Have you seen any evidence yet that my Uncle Pete did not rise from the dead?
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t seen any evidence yet that you’re a professor, but I’m sure you’ll be happy for me to take your word for it. I’ll be just as happy to hear you say that you’re quite familiar with your Uncle Pete’s grave and that it looks just like anyone else’s, and we’ll let the matter rest there until anyone makes the serious claim that he did rise from the dead.

551

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Have you seen any evidence yet that my Uncle Pete did not rise from the dead?
[/QUOTE]
No, but given a few bits of information, I’m sure I could dig some up.

552

[QUOTE=Crotalus]
No, but given a few bits of information, I’m sure I could dig some up.
[/QUOTE]

That would be quite an undertaking.

553

Enough with the cryptic comments!

554

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
What am I not seeing here?
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the fact that it’s not logically inconsistant to believe in an old universe while also believing that (assuming you believe in miracles) Jesus rose from the grave.

[Defense Attorney Mode]

Is it likely?

No.

Does it happen all the time?

No.

Is it possible?

Yes.

[/DAM]

Regarding your request for us to STFU about our beliefs: I personally do not go out to the street corners of DC, stand on an empty peach crate, and proclaim that sinners are going to Hell at the top of my voice. I learned long ago that religous and spiritual matters are not topics for polite company, as people tend to get pissed off when you challenge their beliefs, be they theist or atheist. The only places I discuss my beliefs now are at my dad’s dinner table, with my brothers and friends, and here on the SDMB. In other words, where it’s acceptable.

I’ll be the first to tell you that anyone who’s accosting you on the street or waking you up at 8:30am on a Saturday to ask you to read their literature and give them money is an ass. But it’s unfair of you to extrapolate from that sample that all believers are like that, because we aren’t. I don’t really know how I can prove that to you, other than to refer you back to all the previous LDS and Jehova’s Witness Pit threads where everyone was bashing these practices, including most theists IIRC.

555

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]

Is it possible?

Yes.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, insofar as science ever tells us that things are possible or impossible, the answer you’re looking for is “No.”

If a body can lie in a cave rotting for three days and then get up and walk around, it needed to be alive, not dead, in the first place or else it is impossible. If you want to stretch our understanding of biology to label this event “possible,” then there’s no reason you couldn’t also make a 6000 year-old-earth “possible,” too, or make any other Christian or non-Christian miracle you happen to regard as silly superstition, such as my Uncle Pete popping out of the ground, equally “possible.” If your God can do anything, he can do anything. If not, then not. If you want to classify some biological or other scientific impossiblities as “possible,” then please explain to me how exactly you reached that judgment. Or you can simply STFU, whatever is easier for you. Thanks so much, and have a super-nice day :slight_smile:

556

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Actually, insofar as science ever tells us that things are possible or impossible, the answer you’re looking for is “No.”
[/QUOTE]

It is if you posit the existance of miracles.

557

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
If you want to classify some biological or other scientific impossiblities as “possible,” then please explain to me how exactly you reached that judgment. Or you can simply STFU, whatever is easier for you.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t see this before.

So…you’re going to engage in a discussion of beliefs on a message board, and then complain when people talk about their beliefs? Is this how we’re “forcing” them on you?

558

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
I haven’t seen any evidence yet that you’re a professor, but I’m sure you’ll be happy for me to take your word for it.
[/QUOTE]

Couldn’t possibly care less, in fact. Why don’t you do us both a favor and regard anything I have to say about literature or academia as highly unreliable and likely false, and act accordingly? I’m sure we’d both be happier if you followed such a policy.

559

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Didn’t see this before.

So…you’re going to engage in a discussion of beliefs on a message board, and then complain when people talk about their beliefs? Is this how we’re “forcing” them on you?
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m not going to complain about people discussing their beliefs. You can rattle on completely bat-shit crazy 24/7 for all I care. It’s when you start telling me that your beliefs have entered the area of knowledge, of things that are objectively true, and that you’d like me to share your beliefs, that I’m going to give you considerable resistence.

I recommend shutting up as a much more peacable solution, but you Christers and other religious types don’t seem capable of simply believing what you believe. Telling people why you believe what you believe, in a totally self-contradictory, nonsensical, illogical, sometimes offensive, usually smug way seems to be an inherent part of the package. Why not just STFU and leave everyone, including yourself, in peace? If your panties get into a bunch when people mention your nonsensical beliefs, why not just pray for our immortal souls SILENTLY? What’s your need to make a fool out of yourselves, and blame it on the bad, bad, bad, bad atheists?

560

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Actually, insofar as science ever tells us that things are possible or impossible, the answer you’re looking for is “No.”

If a body can lie in a cave rotting for three days and then get up and walk around, it needed to be alive, not dead, in the first place or else it is impossible. If you want to stretch our understanding of biology to label this event “possible,” then there’s no reason you couldn’t also make a 6000 year-old-earth “possible,” too, or make any other Christian or non-Christian miracle you happen to regard as silly superstition, such as my Uncle Pete popping out of the ground, equally “possible.” If your God can do anything, he can do anything. If not, then not. If you want to classify some biological or other scientific impossiblities as “possible,” then please explain to me how exactly you reached that judgment. Or you can simply STFU, whatever is easier for you. Thanks so much, and have a super-nice day :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

No, no-one is saying that a rotting corpse is able to get up and walk around by a simple operation of the known laws of biology. You have been paying attention to what I have been saying, haven’t you? :dubious:

I’ve also (as has tomndebb, I think) been taking the line that God could have created the Earth as per Genesis, but there is ample evidence that he didn’t. As to your Uncle Pete’s resurrection, I expect that this is readily falsifiable but I do not believe that God couldn’t have done it (assuming, for the argument, the existence of your venerated elder in the first place).

Please note that I didn’t enter this discussion with the intention of demonstrating Christ’s Resurrection as a provable fact - only that it is not inconsistent to believe in it while disbelieving YEC.