Tomndebb you are a hypocritical pussy.

[badchad]

@Polycarp

OK, Dr. Ruber, you’re right on one aspect – we’re in the business of fighting ignorance here. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I consider that my belief structure is duly subject to critical analysis – done with courtesy and respect.

As much as I can do so, I did so here…

Polycarp to explain his religious inconsistencies

… after you said “Start a thread and I will answer specific questions and points” but when under fire decided to not answer specific questions and points (I think you only answered the one on divorce and that failed) but rather decided to characterize my questions and points as nitpicking, as I recall. Say what you want about me being rude and disrespectful, but you Sir, are a dishonest man.

In other words, in Great Debates, you are privileged to call my conclusions from my experiences into question. You are not privileged to call me names in GD, to assert in GD that I am willfully deluded and fostering ignorance.

But you kind of admitted to being willfully deluded. Remember my sig line?

“I’m certain that I, and other liberal Christians including theologians), rationalize to a far greater extent than we’re prepared to admit to anyone, including ourselves.” Polycarp

By this statement it seems that you are at least somewhat aware of the weaknesses in your argument and so much as you continue to argue for them, I don’t think it unreasonable to say that you are at least somewhat willfully fostering ignorance.

And if someone takes the approach of redefining Christianity as “what the Bible says” and calls me to task for not adhering to his revisionism – whether that be Bible Man or Badchad – I am under no obligation to argue on his terms.

For most of our previous discussions I was defining Christianity as more of “what Jesus (in particular) says” than “what the bible (in general) says” and I think I did so at your request. If you have a better definition of what Christianity is then please feel free to state it now.

I buy into the same analytical, critical framework as Diogenes the Cynic and Tomndebb – the Bible is an anthology of writings by a bunch of people purporting to present their individual views of what God was doing in the world. As such, I think there are parts which can be reasonably well relied on, and parts that are the veriest horseshit. In a civil debate, I’ll be glad to present my reasons for which I think are which.

Well Tomndebb does not seem to want to say any more on the subject but I would be surprised if Diogenes the Cynic agrees with you that any of the miracle stories “can be reasonably relied on.” This will be a good test. Please present your reasons why you think any of the miracle stories are not horseshit and we can ask Diogenes the Cynic if by using the “same analytical, critical framework” he comes to the same conclusion as you. Fair enough?

In the interim, since you have asserted that speaking of Christianity in any positive sense is “spreading ignorance,” the onus of proof has now passed over to you – you are under obligation to disprove Christianity to the satisfaction of critical analysis.

Four words: The problem of evil.

There’s more, but that’s enough to start.

Badchad, I know you have a personal agenda against me, but I cannot believe your reading comprehension was so bad that you failed to get my point in that “psychic powers” discussion: In my opinion, most “psychic powers” are in fact the product of subconscious, intuitive analysis of sensory cues and past data, giving rise to a “Eureka!” moment that is perceived as a flash of telepathy, clairvoyance, etc., but is in actuality not that.

I bolded your word “most.” By using that word it seem you think there are some “psychic power” that are not of this characterization. Tell me what, in your opinion, you think they are.

In support of that, I gave the one example I’ve experienced of “telepathy” – when I took in the young man whom I came to love as a son, and we were so closely involved with each other that we each could intuit the thought processes of the other, and as a result “read his mind.” In other words, observing the phenomenon he was experiencing and knowing as well as I did how his mind worked, I could conclude with pretty fair accuracy what he was thinking in reaction to that phenomenon, and he could do likewise with me. Not “psychic powers” at all, but intuitive analysis mimicking them.

Well I do think you are the absolute king at placating to both sides of an argument, sometimes even within the same paragraph. Still my response to you now would be the same as my response to you then:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4009294&postcount=54

You’re welcome to look down on me for buying into a variant on Christianity that you have conceived reasons to hate, for using an unfortunate metaphor about a kid I at one time though was going to do a "Christ figure…

I thought when you were describing Christ’s return as the sodomizing son of Sam Walton, you said it wasn’t just a metaphor?

While I claimed to be “telepathic” in that case intentionally, as a way of making my point, I did not say what you are seemingly claiming I said.

You said this: “Communication by mind power at a distance? Nearly impossible. We managed it once…” While I admit you used a lot of doublespeak, you definitely made the claim that you can communicate by mind power at a distance, which is a psychic power.

[badchad]

@Polycarp

As for me, I have always endeavored to show respect for the atheists whom I may engage in debate. (Not so much for the fundamentalists and evangelicals – to me they are violating a pledge that both they and we liberals made to the same God, by their refusal to carry out commandments which He defined as fundamental to following Him.)

Bolding mine.

Thank you very much. See this is much of the point. I made an effort to treat you in the exact same way that you treat the fundamentalists. Part of my argument with you, from the beginning, has been that you, and others, treat them very poorly. Yet when I do the same to you, you cry like a little baby.

By your admission here you are saying that mutual respect is not necessary to debate and early on, when I started challenging you and other nominal Christians I specifically said that I held equal respect for your beliefs that you did for theirs. It’s called a taste of your own medicine. How’d you like it?

Thanks again for your explicit admission of this, I’m sure I can make good use of it later.

[xenophon41]

@What Exit?

I explained what I thought she should be ashamed of, and you conveniently snipped it. I was refering only to her last post where she was calling **Pseudo ** a troll. Do you really thnk **Pseudo ** is a jerk across his time as a poster, or just in this thread? I think that makes a large difference.

Jim

Sorry for the snip; it was to condense my post rather than to conveniently ignore your explanation. To address what was snipped: I disagree that Zoe’s comment in reference to pseudo’s participation in this thread was a “cheap shot” or shameful in any other way. She charged that he and bad have both behaved “like jerks and trolls.” While I don’t think pseudo is a troll, he has worked so hard to emulate bad in this thread that his behavior could indeed be described as “like a troll”.

And to answer your question, I’ve never attempted to gauge pseudotriton ruber ruber’s level of jerkishness in other threads, and don’t intend to make such an effort. But in the one other thread cited during this discussion as an example of pseudo’s jerkiosity, I can see how one could develop the impression that his behavior here is the rule rather than the exception.

[What_Exit]

@xenophon41

Sorry for the snip; it was to condense my post rather than to conveniently ignore your explanation. To address what was snipped: I disagree that Zoe’s comment in reference to pseudo’s participation in this thread was a “cheap shot” or shameful in any other way. She charged that he and bad have both behaved “like jerks and trolls.” While I don’t think pseudo is a troll, he has worked so hard to emulate bad in this thread that his behavior could indeed be described as “like a troll”.

And to answer your question, I’ve never attempted to gauge pseudotriton ruber ruber’s level of jerkishness in other threads, and don’t intend to make such an effort. But in the one other thread cited during this discussion as an example of pseudo’s jerkiosity, I can see how one could develop the impression that his behavior here is the rule rather than the exception.

Fair on the snip, I was apparently being snippy. Sorry.
I think **Zoe ** meant more ill than you feel she did, but I see your interpretation as valid.
I have dealt with **Pseudo ** in other threads and I have met him. So to my point of view, I am sure he is not a troll or even trollish.

Jim

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@badchad

Bolding mine.

Thank you very much. See this is much of the point. I made an effort to treat you in the exact same way that you treat the fundamentalists. Part of my argument with you, from the beginning, has been that you, and others, treat them very poorly. Yet when I do the same to you, you cry like a little baby.

By your admission here you are saying that mutual respect is not necessary to debate and early on, when I started challenging you and other nominal Christians I specifically said that I held equal respect for your beliefs that you did for theirs. It’s called a taste of your own medicine. How’d you like it?

Thanks again for your explicit admission of this, I’m sure I can make good use of it later.

badchad, you’ve made a very good point. I’ve always been concerned about how fundies are treated around here and I’ve certainly been guilty over the years I’ve been associated with this board to increasingly bash them. Polycarp has been a huge influence on where I’m at right now wrt my understanding of the spiritual realm and real life implications so understand that I’m in his camp. I’ve been very uncomfortable with your posting. But your last post convinces me that you have the right, even the obligation to present your views as you have and let the chips fall where they may. Fair is fair.

[badchad]

@The Flying Dutchman

badchad, you’ve made a very good point. I’ve always been concerned about how fundies are treated around here and I’ve certainly been guilty over the years I’ve been associated with this board to increasingly bash them. Polycarp has been a huge influence on where I’m at right now wrt my understanding of the spiritual realm and real life implications so understand that I’m in his camp. I’ve been very uncomfortable with your posting. But your last post convinces me that you have the right, even the obligation to present your views as you have and let the chips fall where they may. Fair is fair.

Thanks.

[cosmosdan]

@The Flying Dutchman

badchad, you’ve made a very good point. I’ve always been concerned about how fundies are treated around here and I’ve certainly been guilty over the years I’ve been associated with this board to increasingly bash them. Polycarp has been a huge influence on where I’m at right now wrt my understanding of the spiritual realm and real life implications so understand that I’m in his camp. I’ve been very uncomfortable with your posting. But your last post convinces me that you have the right, even the obligation to present your views as you have and let the chips fall where they may. Fair is fair.

Don’t you think there’s a difference between an assertive, unapoligetic, direct approach as in “I think your beliefs are just as superstious and irrational as any fundamentalist and I am prepared to demonstrate it” and the kind of tactics** badchad** uses?

Then again, no one is forcing anyone to respond. Each poster can choose their style and live with the results. It’s only a message board after all.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@cosmosdan

Don’t you think there’s a difference between an assertive, unapoligetic, direct approach as in “I think your beliefs are just as superstious and irrational as any fundamentalist and I am prepared to demonstrate it” and the kind of tactics** badchad** uses?

Yes, the difference being that the first approach is dull, vague, and wordy, and badchad is often clever, particular and memorable. It’s the easiest thing in the world for someone to avoid having a debate he’s probably going to lose by claiming that the style of the OP prevents him from responding to it. You might as well say, “I’m being completely disingenuous here, but no one can prove that it’s cowardice rather than my refined and delicate sensibilities that prevents my response.”

[samclem]

@cosmosdan

Don’t you think there’s a difference between an assertive, unapoligetic, direct approach as in “I think your beliefs are just as superstious and irrational as any fundamentalist and I am prepared to demonstrate it” and the kind of tactics** badchad** uses?

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Yes, the difference being that the first approach is dull, vague, and wordy, and badchad is often clever, particular and memorable.

There’s always another view–that one method is used by most thinking people in polite society, and the other is used by the clueless who really don’t understand why people think they’re perceived as rude.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@cosmosdan

Don’t you think there’s a difference between an assertive, unapoligetic, direct approach as in “I think your beliefs are just as superstious and irrational as any fundamentalist and I am prepared to demonstrate it” and the kind of tactics** badchad** uses?

Then again, no one is forcing anyone to respond. Each poster can choose their style and live with the results. It’s only a message board after all.

My post comes from an understanding of a general amorphous vitriolic attitude that includes my esteemed Polycarp towards fundies. I understand why Polycarp would feel that way. I’m there too. But the purpose of this message board is to challenge ideas and beliefs and yes, it can get emotional and “out of hand” with current posters. But when an “esteemed poster” is challenged, we’ll take this debate to a higher and critical level in this community. badchad is challenging an icon of this community, let there be no doubt. we are all enriched by the exchange by these two. (Easy for me to sit back and watch)

[cosmosdan]

@badchad

It is interesting. You said I could not know your reasons for avoiding my questions, but it seems you think you know mine. If you are that interested in taking this discussion further you could answer my questions, so I can fully clarify your position on given matters. At which point I will respond in such a way as to strengthen or weaken my argument that you are a mush brain, and I could do so with relative ease. So long as you take the fifth I would have to search your past statements for items of choice but I don’t think you’re worth that kind of effort, and I wouldn’t want you continuing to claim that I misunderstand you. I’d much rather have a clear and concise Q & A.

And yes, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have of me as well.

I’ve spelled out the specifics of your hypocrisy and you have failed to refute my argument. Instead you do the very thing you complain others are doing to you.

posted by you earlier
I’ve noticed you theists have found your best defense is to clam up, and while this is in fact your best defense, I’ve had about enough of it.

giving us another example.
While saying your time is limited you insist that I must go off on another tangent which is just your way of trying to manipulate and control the direction of the argument. Good try. Not gonna work.

I’ve made no statement about divorce or marriage in the NT that need clarifying or defending. I simply don’t have the time or the interest in that discussion. I invited you to finish one you were already participating in and bailed on.

I’m content to let my description of your hypocrisy go unanswered if that’s how you want it. I’ll let the readers decide for themselves. I think they should pay particular attention to the conclusions* you* draw about that kind of action.

As far as proving me a mush brain goes. You’ve failed in our discussions so far. You might be able to succeed if I allowed you to manipulate and control the discussion in the way you prefer. In that you have failed as well. You probably see that as part of your “gift.” It’s pretty transparent.

[cosmosdan]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Yes, the difference being that the first approach is dull, vague, and wordy, and badchad is often clever, particular and memorable. It’s the easiest thing in the world for someone to avoid having a debate he’s probably going to lose by claiming that the style of the OP prevents him from responding to it. You might as well say, “I’m being completely disingenuous here, but no one can prove that it’s cowardice rather than my refined and delicate sensibilities that prevents my response.”

I’ve taken enough shots at you and will refrain this time. You’re free to draw whatever conclusions you like about why people decide not to engage your hero.

What conclusions do you draw from him bailing on the hypocrisy discussion? He claims he bailed because I wouldn’t go off on a tangent discussion. Since I won’t answer his questions why should he answer mine? That’s a bit dishonest as well since I wasn’t asking him any question. I was spelling out in specific details of his hypocrisy. Details that remain uncontested at this point.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@samclem

There’s always another view–that one method is used by most thinking people in polite society, and the other is used by the clueless who really don’t understand why people think they’re perceived as rude.

Do you really think I or badchad don’[t get it that people think him (and probably me) as being overbearing and rude? Speaking for myself here, I totally get it, I’ve gotten it for several hundred posts by now, if not for my last 2665 posts, and it’s just not that big a deal to be rude in a context of rudeness. I promise you, I’m not clueless, I just don’t seem to care quite as much as you seem to, or as you pretend to. Civility is a virtue, but it takes a back seat to plain and clear speaking. YMMV.

[badchad]

@cosmosdan

I’ve spelled out the specifics of your hypocrisy and you have failed to refute my argument. Instead you do the very thing you complain others are doing to you.

Sure, in your case I am ignoring what you think is my hypocrisy until you quit ignoring my questions. So yes I am doing the very same thing I complain others are doing, in this case I am doing it because of what you are doing. Consider it; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

While saying your time is limited you insist that I must go off on another tangent…

It’s not really a tangent. You could simply answer if you think divorce and remarriage are ok, and for what, if any, reasons. This could be a very short answer, as could answers be to any other questions I might have.

I’ve made no statement about divorce or marriage in the NT that need clarifying or defending. I simply don’t have the time or the interest in that discussion.

No but you have made statements alluding to the fact that Jesus is a prophet of god, and you have also said that Jesus is no more godly than I am. As such I just want to know if you think Jesus can err. I asked you this on another thread and you ignored it. Divorce and remarriage are just one of many specific examples I could have asked you about. I have already seen how you will argue a length to avoid accepting the teachings of Jesus on riches, yet still fail to say that you thought Jesus was incorrect. I just want to know how far you will go with this. You really don’t need to take the time for a discussion, just answer the question and I will in turn respond to your questions and claims of my hypocrisy. Quid pro quo.

I’m content to let my description of your hypocrisy go unanswered if that’s how you want it. I’ll let the readers decide for themselves. I think they should pay particular attention to the conclusions* you* draw about that kind of action.

That’s fine.

As far as proving me a mush brain goes. You’ve failed in our discussions so far. You might be able to succeed if I allowed you to manipulate and control the discussion in the way you prefer.

Of that I am sure. Emphasis mine.

[samclem]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Do you really think I or badchad don’[t get it that people think him (and probably me) as being overbearing and rude? Speaking for myself here, I totally get it, I’ve gotten it for several hundred posts by now, if not for my last 2665 posts, and it’s just not that big a deal to be rude in a context of rudeness. I promise you, I’m not clueless, I just don’t seem to care quite as much as you seem to, or as you pretend to. Civility is a virtue, but it takes a back seat to plain and clear speaking. YMMV.

I was speaking of badchad’s approach to posts on this board, not to yours.

As to whether I’m pretending to care–fuck your insinuation of my post. Civility and plain speaking are NOT mutually exclusive. YMMV.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@cosmosdan

You’re free to draw whatever conclusions you like about why people decide not to engage your hero.

The only person I’ve referred to as my hero in this thread (I think it was this thread) is Ralph Waldo Emerson. Who’s avoiding confronting RWE? Well, Zoe is , I guess, in mangling his ideas and painting him as a champion of devout religious thought.

I have plenty of heroes: Frank Zappa, Emerson, Lincoln, Sam Ervin, Nietzsche, Frederick Douglass, Carl Sagan, Whitman, Thomas Paine, on and on and on, to say nothing of the many brave ladies who can’t be called 'heroes," most of whom wittily defended and espoused unpopular ideas because they believed they weren’t getting a fair hearing.

[badchad]

@samclem

I was speaking of badchad’s approach to posts on this board, not to yours.

So you think I don’t know people perceive me as rude?

As to whether I’m pretending to care—fuck your insinuation of my post. Civility and plain speaking are NOT mutually exclusive. YMMV.

Obviously not. Emphasis mine.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@samclem

I was speaking of badchad’s approach to posts on this board, not to yours.

As to whether I’m pretending to care–fuck your insinuation of my post. Civility and plain speaking are NOT mutually exclusive. YMMV.

Please feel free to fuck whichever abstract ideas float your boat. I never claimed that civility and plain speaking are mutually exclusive–quite the contrary. I just asserted that, IMO, the first is far, far less valuable than the second. And when you say, “fuck your insinuation,” and I merely clarify my point without getting into a whole outraged “How dare you speak to me like that” type of bullshit deflecting rant, you help me make my point. So I sincerely thank you for illustrating what I’m talking about–content trumps style. Every time.

[Zoe]

badchad: Hmm, another call for censorship; the last bastion of any good theist.

You have again stated a lie – the first bastion of a troublemaker and one untrained in debating skills. I did not call for censorship. I am opposed to government censorship, but not opposed to SDMB’s abiding by their own stated rules of conduct. Neither do I like the idea of peaceful and knowledgeable participants leaving because of trolls and jerks who think that train wrecks are a sign of popularity. (Rotten teeth get attention, kid.)

What Exit? (Addressed to badchad): You also appear to only be a jerk to those who are able to get offended by their personnel belief being belittled.

Try telling that to the other atheists here. I don’t think you’ve read much of this thread.

I am not offended because badchad has tried to belittle my personal beliefs. If you had read my posts carefully, you would know that I am not troubled by others’ opinions about my beliefs. I have admitted openly that I may be mistaken in my beliefs and that everyone has a right to follow whatever path presents itself to her or him as the right one. That includes atheists. I don’t find another person’s beliefs threatening to me.

I used to teach debate and coach forensics in high school. I was a judge at the national forensic competition in the 1980’s, though I did not choose to judge debate. I did tell badchad that I could see potential in his ability, but that he was terribly undisciplined. The main point that I have focused on with his “argument” is that he claims to be rational, but is continuously ascribing motives to other people. He cannot possibly read other people’s minds and know their motives. That is irrational and underminds his own argument.

You did the same thing, by the way, in assuming that I am offended because my beliefs have been “belittled.” They haven’t been. They are out of his reach. You can’t read minds either.

I think badchad is a troll because he has in so many words admitted to it in this thread. He is a jerk because he asks questions and doesn’t listen to the responses but tries to bully people into still more irrelevant questions without responding in kind. He is also pretentious.

Speaking of pretentious, Pseudotriton Ruber Ruber has made claims about his academic credentials which do not make any sense at all to some of us in the same field. Yes, he can be very pleasant in other threads. He has tried to troll in this one.

[cosmosdan]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

The only person I’ve referred to as my hero in this thread (I think it was this thread) is Ralph Waldo Emerson. Who’s avoiding confronting RWE? Well, Zoe is , I guess, in mangling his ideas and painting him as a champion of devout religious thought.

I have plenty of heroes: Frank Zappa, Emerson, Lincoln, Sam Ervin, Nietzsche, Frederick Douglass, Carl Sagan, Whitman, Thomas Paine, on and on and on, to say nothing of the many brave ladies who can’t be called 'heroes," most of whom wittily defended and espoused unpopular ideas because they believed they weren’t getting a fair hearing.

Now that you’ve had your fun with this how about answering the question I asked in that post. I’m seriously interested in your honest opinion.