pseduotriton, if you want people to engage the content of your posts, it helps if you actually include content in your posts. Your participation in this thread thus far amounts to one giant spazz attack, which leaves the rest of us little to work.
It’s simply an insistence on consistency. I don’t understand why someone who starts “from a position of non-belief” wants to concede that logical or textual inconsistencies may be okay some of the time, live and let live, everything’s open for interpretation, who am I to judge, etc. What would Jesus say? He wants total and utter obedience to the core of one’s soul in his divinity, yet you don’t calll him an unreasonable fanatic, do you? Badchad labels Christ a cunt because he insists on eternal torture for those who doubt his divinity of peace of love, and he (badchad, not Jesus–gotta keep them antecedents straight) sees some philosophical inconsistency there. If you explain away gigantic inconsistencies by convenient cherrypicking of those parts of Jesus’s philosophy you think are groovy, and reject those that you think are yucky, then your identity as a thoughtful Christian comes into doubt. If you want to explain it away with, “Well, that’s just my own personal stupid fucking opinion that results from being brainwashed as a small child,” I personally will stop questioning you–everyone has a perfect right to identify as a weakminded fool and a pathetic loser. But if you insist that your philosophy makes sense, be prepared for questions and followup questions, to which “Well, I’m inconsistent and weak-minded” won’t be really powerful debating points.
Well,I did call for Tom to resign as a Mod. That’s content. (Anyone want to guess which Robert Lowell poem I was paraphrasing in my call for Tom’s resignation?) But why not simply say something about me being a one-trick pony–that’s the usual gambit at this point, isn’t it? It means nothing, no one has problems with one-trick ponies unless their trick pisses you off, and it usually turns into a clusterfuck pretty quickly (Hey–didn’t I make that argument about ‘one-trick ponies’ before in this thread–can that be counted as “content” please, kind sir? Oh, please?)
Good spelling of my name, btw. Or is it a stupid thing to nitpick when I do it, but a terrific debating point when done to me? Just asking.
Thou sayest.
Whether you ‘take’ him to represent you or not is irrelevant. He does represent you, as surely as Jerry Falwell ‘represents’ Christians.
(And speaking of those of Falwell’s ilk, I do agree with you on the ‘torturing of the scriptures’.)
I parted ways with the church 25 years ago, but my family is still deeply religious. I’ve had many conversations with them about their belief and my reasons for my departure from it, and yet we remain close. Not one of those conversations ever sparked any form of retaliation. I don’t know, maybe it’s because I wasn’t a dick about it.
I don’t mean to say that you’re a dick to your family. Perhaps they’re overly sensitive, or just completely unwilling to hear you out. But there are many here who would hear badchad out, I believe, if he weren’t such a dick (ref. the ‘gotcha’ attitude you mentioned). And that, IMO, is the argument here. Being an atheist doesn’t make him a jackass. Being a jackass makes him a jackass.
What should be done about it? Hell, I don’t know. If you keep feeding a dog table-scraps, I don’t guess you can bitch if he comes in the kitchen and humps your leg every time he smells bacon. <shrug>
What can I say? I’m an agnostic, I agree with all of you…or none of you, depending on what mood I’m in. 
Well, I have kept my mouth shut because (a) badchad irritates the hell out of me, the combination of his arrogant style and insistence that (1) a Christian needs to be a fundamentalist but (2) fundamentalism is garbage, so therefore all Christians are ipso facto idiots, and I thought perhaps you might be able to give some perspective that would allow me to get past his arguments. But you have just confirmed to me that you are not only a fucking prick, but one that can neither reason logically not express himself clearly.
Let’s start with this: The imagery of Jesus you portray above is based on a fundamentalist interpretation of how certain (cherry-picked) Bible verses fit together, justly rejected by you, me, badchad, and seemingly every Doper except possibly Bible Man. Most of the Christians on this board do not found their understanding of Christianity in sola scriptura, and accept the findings of Biblical criticism as valid – or at minimum, as reasonably held theory, to be revised with the advent of new data surrounding it (as was done a few years back when discoveries at Ebla clarified the repeated Abraham-claiming-Sarah-as-sister motif).
I admit, like everyone else from badchad to cosmosdan, to holding parts of Scripture in higher esteem than others. I have a coherent reason for doing so, partly internal to Scripture, partly founded in critical discipline, and partly based on my church’s teachings. Your snide comments here are the offerings of a weakminded parrot who cannot be bothered to think serious topics through and as a result is reduced to echoing insults.
Know thyself, PRR. In the Biblical sense. :mad:
You’re really a teacher? Man, that’s depressing. Please, tell me you teach gym, or woodshop, and not something where you’re responsible for teaching children how to think logically.
Look, this ain’t a hard concept. A lot of Christians take the Bible to be human accounts of divine encounters, and not a direct account straight from the mouth of God. They begin with a notion of God, derived from their own personal experiences and concepts of morality, and look to the Bible to see how other people throughout history have experienced and interpreted their own encounters with what they define as the divine. The reason badchad is such a joke in theological matters is that he’s spent all his time learning about the Bible, and deliberately avoided learning anything about the actual faith behind it. His arguments are fine for Biblical literalists, because the idea of Biblical literalism is inherently flawed. But because he is unable to adress theology on any terms other than Biblical literalism, he becomes enraged at anyone who does not address the Bible on the terms he demands. This is, frankly, about the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on these boards, particularly coming from an atheist. His (and, apparently, your) position on religion is that one must either be a fundamentalist or an atheist. He allows no middle ground at all, which is the most self-defeating position possible for an atheist to take. With vanishingly few exceptions, you are not going to be able to argue people out of their faith. If badchad’s arguments are going to be effective (which is highly unlikely to begin with) the most likely effect will be to move people away from atheism (because who the hell is going to want to be more like this asshole?) and closer to fundamentalist, literalist interpretations of the Bible, which are invariably more restrictive, more oppressive, and more dangerous.
Look at badchad’s obsession with Polycarp. Polycarp has arrived at an understanding of Christianity that is genuinely loving, accepting, and places human brotherhood above dogmatism and judgementalism. How is this a bad thing? Isn’t this the attitude that we want to see more Christians embrace? So what if it’s contradicted at every level by the Bible? Who cares, so long as the way Polycarp acts in real life isn’t harming anyone who doesn’t agree with him? What is gained by insisting that “true Christians” have to act more like Fred Phelps, except to encourage more Christians to act like Fred Phelps? Is that what you really want to see? It’s an enormously stupid and self-defeating approach for an atheist to take, and I strongly question the intellectual capabilities of any Christian who thinks this is a smart tactic to follow.
Time until Polycarp gets called for failing to return love for hate… ::starts watch::
I should clarify that I’m not saying Polycarp’s beliefs are contradicted at every level by the Bible. I meant that as a hypothetical.
That’s exactly what I was thinking, and it’s a great example of the “gotcha” attitude that badchad and PRR have been displaying as of late. “You swore at me! You’re not a good Christian! You’ve proven my point that there is no god!”
My position, if you actually care, fuckwit, is that those who aren’t either fundamentalists or atheists must be able to explain why they pick and choose what they pick and choose, and why they choose to ignore certain fairly lucid passages in the Bible contrary to their professed beliefs. Weak shit like Polycarp’s “Well, I got reeeaal sick one time and an angel of the Lord spake unto me, honest he did” doesn’t remotely qualify as rational or coherent, and I won’t dignify such crap by suggesting that it’s even conceivable that such pathetic arguments should be admitted to a debate, must less given credence.
Well, if I had said that, I’d completely agree – except that I believe subjective evidence is entitled to be considered as precisely that. The opinions of Guin, Siege or Catsix as to Dunbar PA are not fact – but I’ve never been there, and I trust them as competent witnesses. I have had two events in my life that seem to have been mild theophanies, and I’ve always been willing to subject them to rational analysis – provided I get enough respect to continue to participate. (Wondering if the events were in fact delusional can be done respectfully; calling me a deluded idiot, on the other hand, cannot.)
And for someone trumpeting rationality, you sure as hell don’t seem to be showing much in this thread. Or, sir, level-headedness. Or the capacity for competent, clear, expressive writing one would expect of an English teacher. I was trained as one, many years ago. Either you don’t feel the Dopers are entitled to good writing, or you are incompetent at what you are supposed to be teaching others. (By the way, an allusion that nobody grasps is purely masturbation with words – it may make you feel good to play with it, but it is bringing pleasure to nobody else. (Happen to know what that’s a paraphrase of? I’ll bet several Dopers do.)
The hell? Why shouldn’t someone be able to hold a belief about God in accordance with how they think God should act?
Off into hypothetical territory–let’s say I believe in God. Deep down, I just feel that’s the case. I recognize that this belief is unsupportable by science, but I’m comfortable with that.
Now, if I feel in my heart of hearts that God is good, that He does good works, and that He loves me, why can’t I point to parts of the Christian Bible and say–“Okay, there’s an example of God truly at work. See, Jesus is hanging out with tax collectors and hookers because he was an egalitarian dude. That truly was the work of God, or, was at least congruent with God in the way I perceive Him.” Conversely, why can’t I point to other parts of the Christian Bible and say–“Hey, there’s an example of Paul being a dick about homosexuality. God, as I perceive Him, wouldn’t be in favor of that kind of policy. Therefore, this quotation is not consistent with God in the way I know Him, and may just be Paul espousing his own backwards morality and crediting it to God.” If I have a preconceived notion of God derived from my own experience and reflection, who are you to say what parts of the Bible I think are accurate descriptions of the work of God and which are misattributions due to the work of fallible men? We must believe all witnesses to God or none of them? Is that it? I don’t see why belief needs to be an all-or-nothing phenomenon.
In science, you would never throw out an entire field because some jackass made up data. Hwang Woo-Suk falsified data and got it published in Science and yet, somehow, that journal still has some currency with a few illogical faith-filled crazies.
Oooh, bible burn 
I actually have some sympathy for the idea of not picking and choosing from the Bible, but at the very least one should limit that to it’s description of physical events, not to the philosophical aspects dealing with good and evil. Personall, I find the flood story as (non)believable as the resurrection story, but that doesn’t discount the value of looking at the teachings of Jesus or even of any of the OT figures. When you distill Christ’s teaching down to their essence, they are remarkably modern and, well, reasonable. One could do waaaaay worse than to live by that code. I’m surprised by how many people actually think **badchad **is debating from a position of knowledge. He strikes me as the kind of guy who read on book of biblical criticism and thinks he’s ready to take on the world. Well, this board is full of very bright, very well educated people. Most of us read that book when we were teenagers, too, and frankly, we’re not impressed.
Why do I get the strong suspicion that there are no arguments a non-atheist, non-fundamentalist could put forward defending their beliefs that you would not dismiss as “weak shit?” And, in situations where these poorly reasoned beliefs lead to behavior and attitudes that are harmless, or even beneficial, why do you care that they’re so poorly reasoned? What benefit do you perceive from convincing Polycarp that the Bible wants him to hate gays, for example?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: they’re begging the question.
Describe an experience or phenomenon as something that can be apprehended through the five senses and/or instruments that extend their reach? Oooh, it’s real, therefore nothing to do with “God”, etc.
Describe an experience or phenomenon as something that cannot be so apprehended? Oooh, it’s not real, fairy tales, you can’t defend it, etc.
Gee whiz, if you define “religious” or “theistic” as “pertaining only to those things that are not real”, then, umm, guess what, it isn’t real!
I think that’s why they insist on a fundamentalist strawman: an insistent definition of the divine as “unreal” meshes with the belief systems of the fundies and their DC Comics kind of understanding of what less willfully stupid people once said.
But if they can’t back you into that corner, they’ll eventually change tactics and push you towards the other: Ockham’s Razor, if you’re not talking about patently unreal things, you’re only talking about real things, and those things aren’t divine or spiritual.
Inasmuch as you have made up substantial content of this paragraph from your own fevered imagination, I can see where you have worked yourself into a lather, but it is rather silly, given how much it bears no relation to reality.
There have been several believers (some Christian, some not Christian) who have tangled with badchad on the subject of their beliefs and his derision of them. None of them have ever come to me complaining that badchad was picking on them, (and, given that his style is well known, I would be disinclined to run to their aid, in any case).
I have not interrupted any thread in which badchad has been ramping around for the purpose of challenging his beliefs (even when, as happens, he displays logical errors).
I have not rushed in to “save” any poster who has been (in the view of some number of posters) “losing” a debate with badchad. You have been asked to provide evidence for this or similar claims on several occasions in this thread and you have resolutely chosen to ignore those calls for evidence. (You seem to be taking lessons from Bible man on that score.)
In fact, I have, on a couple of occasions, posted my opinion that badchad has made no secret of his views or his “logic” and that, if a person chooses to debate him on his own turf, they need to look out for themselves.
On the other hand, on three separate occasions, I have told badchad to refrain making direct personal attacks on other posters. These have been the result of specific statements that he has posted which I have pointed out in my address to him. On one occasion, he interrupted a thread with a comment that was wholly off-topic and I told him to keep it for another thread. Such are the rules of GD and it is not hard to discover where I have urged other posters to demonstrate similar restraint. On none of those occasions did I issue a formal warning that could be used in later staff discussions to determine whether we should ban badchad. (And, while staff discussions are not visible to the TM, I have already mentioned that I have spoken against banning him until he actually breaks rules.)*
In contrast to my actions, you have specifically stated that I should judge Christian posters more harshly than non-believers, simply because I am Christian (while making no similar call for Gaudere or MEBuckner to judge non-believers more harshly since they are not believers). So, basically, you have called for a staff that will specifically tilt the playing field in your direction, even though you have provided no evidence that the field is currently other than level.
-
Furt raised an interesting point that might be a good topic for debate, although I cannot see us ever coming to a resolution, much less a consensus.
It is clear that badchad is aggressively hostile. A sizable number of posters–including many non-believers as well as believers–regard badchad as a jerk. On the other hand, there appears to be some number of posters who believe that he is not behaving as a jerk.
So, how do we decide? At what point do we choose to throw a bum out to keep order in the house? It is true that a disruptive poster can cause us to lose good patrons. It is also true that culling the herd too sharply results in a homogenized group of bland posters nodding their heads in agreement, then wandering off to other pastures to find boards that are actually interesting. In general, I would prefer that the culling be done according to bright line definitions. This tends to avoid giving the impression that all decisions are based on personal whim or partisan bias (although there have been plenty of those charges–from both sides–in this thread, so there does not appear to be a way to avoid such complaints completely).
No one is compelled to respond to another poster. Why should the staff bear the onus of deciding outside the rules who should go or stay, then suffer the abuse for being “capricious” or “arbitrary”?
By what guideline should we ban badchad when substantial numbers of posters disagree on whether he is an obnoxious jerk or simply an aggressive proponent for a single issue?
Why can’t he be both? One more personality, and he could be the Trinity. 
Then, do we ban him or make him Cecil?
Heretic!
Honestly, I don’t follow that logic at all. I may have little to nothing in common w/Poly when it comes to religion, but I’d be hard-pressed to think he is represented by Falwell in any way whatsoever. In fact, quite the opposite would be true. Despite whatever faith/beliefs he has, the bottom line is I think him to be a good man. Quite a chasm between that and what I think of Falwell.
Well, to a certain degree, I think the vast majority of Christians do pick and choose which parts of The Book “apply” to them. OTOH, it hardly gets me into a lather as long as they keep their beliefs a-to themselves and b-respect mine.
Ultimately I’m of mind that “I don’t know and neither do you” is the best approach when speaking of genesis and leave it at that. Unless of course, the other party is amiable to a friendly debate.
I gave you an example of an exchange between sis and I. I also assure you there was no exaggeration on my part. Ironically enough, our Mom was basically on board with my own beliefs, yet we both knew better than to discuss them with sis. She’s quite the handful…although I must admit once you get me going, so am I. So I’ve found it best to avoid any type of counters to her continued proselityzing. Funny though, my youngest nephew, who is now a college freshman, has become a hard core atheist. Guess whose to “blame” for that?
BTW, when my own son asked me about god – I believe he was ten or eleven at the time. Sixteen currently – I simply told him what I thought but that he should do his own search ands reach his own conclusions. Even if that led him to become a mute monk in Tibet.
He’s currently a weak atheist of his own volition. His Mom is none too happy with me either.
:::shrug:::
Sounds like you need some Lithium. Bipolar are you?
j/k
Oh, come on! Give the guy a break and at least keep it earthly.
I vote for Inspector Clouseau.