Athletes and religion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Political disagreements get uglier than baseball disagreements.

    And religious disagreements get uglier than political disagreements.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Political disagreements get uglier than baseball disagreements. And religious disagreements get uglier than political disagreements.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Trying hard to keep it civil. But I do wish it would end. I am hoping lowell's last comments will end it once and for all. Or better, Dottie can move to another forum.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Trying hard to keep it civil. But I do wish it would end. I am hoping lowell's last comments will end it once and for all. Or better, Dottie can move to another forum.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]


    LOL, admit it jessey, part of you is enjoying this!Wink
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    All this thread needs now is a visit from kimsaysthis.  She will find a way to blame all of the world's religious strife on Yankee fans.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Apart from God there can be no objective moral standards. But we live in a world that has objective moral standards. Therefore there has to be a divine moral lawgiver. We refer to that lawgiver as "God".

     The moral code of God appeared in many countries and villages that were seperated by steep mountain ranges, seas, and oceans and deep into thick jungles before the days of travel, communication, missionaries and books? Tell me how those similarities got there?  Did the similarities happen by chance. Those who rejected the moral standards of God became atheists.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : I'll defer to your expertise on this issue, but what I meant was illness is natural in the sense that foreign organic substances enter our bodies and attack our immune systems as a natural course of life.  Our body expects this and has mechanisms to deal accordingly, but we usually seek medical help to speed up the natural process. But we also seek help for degenerative issues that are caused by nothing more than life.  Nothing has to go wrong for our bodies to eventually break down, and whether its our eyes, ears, hips, what have you, we usually find ourselves turning to science and medicine to correct the condition of a perfectly natural state that we would prefer not to be in. The risk of death is not great in child-birth, but honestly we have contraception largely to thank for that.  If there were no such thing as contraception, and every conception resulted in the baby being born, the life expectancy of women would be cut dramatically, and infant mortality would be through the roof. Power is the central issue - right now we're only talking about contraception, but if you set the precedent that laws can be overturned based on the religious convictions of the business owners, it opens the doors to all sorts of abuses - labor laws, tax implications, you name it.  Keep in mind - many of these employees are not Catholic, do not have any problem with contraception, and would be denied what the legislation says they are entitled to.  Whether or not you agree with the legislation, or the idea of contraception as a health care service, the idea that the extent of the services a Jewish nurse would enjoy could be determined by the Pope is simply disturbing.  Telling her she can go find another job is disturbing.   As for Humanae Vitae, the decree came in the late 60s - I'd say we're actually a far more conservative society now than then.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    I would like to address a few of your comments.


    You said power is the central issue and that you don't want the pope making a determination on who can use birth control.  You said you were disturbed by these thoughts.


    I am afraid of the power issue also but from a different source, the federal government.

    Obama is overreaching his authority and he is using obamacare to do it.

    If you do some research into the over 2,000 pages of obamacare you will find that provisions have been made for a number of departments to be created (some already exist).

    The department heads will be appointed by obama.

    The departments heads will have the power to interpret how parts obamacare should be carried out.
     
    Remember pelozi told congress they had to pass the bill in order to know what's in it.

    Congress had only 3 days to read the bill.  Three separate people wrote the bill so there is no consistency.

    There is a lot of wiggle room for the interpretation and the carrying out of parts this bill.

    Kathleen sebelius is the secretary for health and human services.  She is one of the non-elected appointed heads of the departments in obamacare.

    She is the one who put forth this law.  It wasn't discussed in the house then put to a vote.  It wasn't passed on to the senete to be discussed the put to a vote. If the bill made it pass the house and senate then it would have been up to obama to approve it or not.

    From obama's lips to her ears, a new law was born. Who needs that pesky old constitution with it's balance of power. I'm sure obama will always do the right thing for this country.  Republic, representatives of the people, for the people and by the people. What is silly old antiquated idea. Anyone note a hint of sarcasm on my part?

    Since she is not elected she can't be voted out of office if 'we the people' don't like what she's doing.

    Obama can simply tell his appointees what he wants, under obamacare they have the legel right to interpret that law as they see fit, so they decree the laws obama wants.

    Genius!  Obama has negated the balance of power.  He doesn't have to go through the house and senate anymore.

    There are many other departments provided for in this bill so obama will be appointing many other heads who will be at his bidding.

    Right now he is targeting catholics because there is a general anti-catholic feeling in this country so we are easy marks.  You said it yourself, you don't want the pope controlling you.

    If the general public continues to support this maddnens the man will gain more power.  He will make the people we elect to represent us powerless therefore useless.

    It is inevitable that one day your freedoms will be taken away from you because that's what happens when socialism takes root.  Remember obama wants to share the wealth so that means taking from you what is rightfully yours to give to someone else.

    If you don't find this disturbing then I don't know what to say.

    By the way, jew, protestants and other groups are backing this fight against freedom of religion.  They, especially the jews, can see the righting on the wall.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]All this thread needs now is a visit from kimsaysthis.  She will find a way to blame all of the world's religious strife on Yankee fans.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    LOL, great line!!!
    On second thought she might be right!Wink
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Nice job, jessey....A truly disturbing example of the reality of accepted barbaric practice being embraced by Yahweh is the passage from Deuteronomy where he declares that the Israelites need to follow holy war practices with their most idolatrous enemies, but are allowed to spare the women and children with less egregious enemies (Deuteronomy 20:10-18):  "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God." A less disturbing instance in which the realities of history impact the Old Testament concerns Samuel, Books 1 and 2.  Biblical scholars have long demonstrated that there are two separate strands.  One strand is pro-monarchical and was written in the court of Solomon.  It presents the development of Israelite kingship as a good thing and part of God's plan (the "son of David" etc.).  Another harkens back to the tribal league and condems it, such as when Samuel refuses the request of the people's demand for a king and prays to Yahweh: "But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. "And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you." (1 Samuel 8:7-8) There are also examples in the New Testament, such as one of the synoptic sources which has Jesus giving us his "Render unto Caesar" dictum, designed by the writer who put these words into the mouth of the real historical Jesus to show that the growing Christian community was NOT a threat to the Roman Empire. The Bible is a document that was, I believe, divinely inspired, as many other religious texts throughout the ages have been.  But is is also a historical document, written by real human beings and, as such, it is impacted by the cultural assumptions, attitudes, beliefs and even strategic needs of its time.  I understand that many people were brought up with the fundamentalist notion that everything in both the Old and New Testament is "the Word of God".  The problem with that view is that "the Word of God" sometimes embraces diametrically opposed positions or, worse, gives legitimacy to some of the most barbaric practices of the day (we are talking Old Testament, here, of course).  For those on this board who are of a fundamentalist persuasion, I realize that posts such as this are not going to sway you.  But my only point is that reason and faith can work together, and do not need to be mutually exclusive....
    Posted by teilhardian[/QUOTE]

    Who would want to read the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus unless he was Jewish or in solitary confinement for a year with nothing else to do? Why is the the passages from these books relevant here? Most of the Old Testament is what turns off millions of people from reading the New Testament. Only Biblical scholars and those with divinity degrees can define and extract the reasons why so many Jewish leaders were barbaric military heroes and why God was portrayed as a vindictive, unloving God. The answers are there somewhere probably but they are not obvious to the non-scholar. The time has come to rewrite the Old Testament or else delete most of it from the Bible. It only serves ( in its present form)  as convenient ammunition for the atheists in our society.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Don't know about anyone else, but I think spirituality is an extremely personal thing. People who wear their religion on their sleeve for all to see have always seemed a little over the top to me, like a wealthy person who spends ostentatiously, just so everyone else will see they have money. I don't dislike Tim Tebow because he's a Christian, I dislike him because of his childish "Tebowing" every time he gains a yard, as though God really does have a vested interest in the Denver Bronco's won-lost record. And I find myself wishing Adrian Gonzalez would just play baseball and let the rest of the world find its own faith. Do you think professional sports are the proper forum for evangelical pursuits?
    Posted by davetheknave[/QUOTE]


    Maybe its the religious part that bothers some fans, or simply the attention they recieve for expressing themselves.  I don't see a problem if its done through religion, or another type of ritual as long as its not offensive.

    Look at guys like Al "the mad hungarian" Hrabosky, or Mark "the bird" Fidrych.  Its just the way certain people motivate/express themselves in a harmless manner.  I personally blame the sports writers and others for blowing the Tebow craze completely out of proportion to the point its just ridiculous. 

    I also find the talk about people like Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston much more irritating because they hurt their family, friends and themselves during the process of doing something out of the ordinary.  We all know how they died so why blame others, or try and cover op the real facts by honoring their achievments for months on end?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    67Redsox, you are to be applauded on the strength of your convictions on your beliefs regarding birth control and religious beliefs in general. I share them on abortion ( common definition) but do not on contraception. Do you really think that most Catholics are relying on the rhythm method or abstinence? Is creating a hostile environment for the mating of an egg and sperm, using an IUD or condom, equivalent to abortion.

    Outside of this issue that you are apparently very upset about, what do you think about President Obama  on other issues in respect to your Christian values? How do you rate Obama on Christian issues such as care to the needy, wealth redistribution, and the environment? One other question, would Christ be a Democrat or a Republican ( forget the contraception issue).
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from teilhardian. Show teilhardian's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Who would want to read the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus unless he was Jewish or in solitary confinement for a year with nothing else to do? Why is the the passages from these books relevant here? Most of the Old Testament is what turns off millions of people from reading the New Testament. Only Biblical scholars and those with divinity degrees can define and extract the reasons why so many Jewish leaders were barbaric military heroes and why God was portrayed as a vindictive, unloving God. The answers are there somewhere probably but they are not obvious to the non-scholar. The time has come to rewrite the Old Testament or else delete most of it from the Bible. It only serves ( in its present form)  as convenient ammunition for the atheists in our society.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    Pike....Just as the Old Testament was a living, and breathing historical document, so is the New Testament.  Biblical scholars and those who have spent a lifetime dedicated to understanding the historical Jesus, like John Dominic Crossan, have demonstrated that there are a number of different oral and written strands in the New Testament, such as the "Q" material, and that God did not pull up a chair and dictate it to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  I respect your religious beliefs, but to dismiss the Old Testament is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Jesus was Jewish, and when he did things like challenge the religious hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, one has to understand what the religious tradition of a covenant religion developed by a nomadic people really was.  Christianity has its roots in Judaism, even if the simple moral prescription of "love God and love your neighbor" represents a revolutionary transformation, and a seminal break with the legalistic codes of Judaism. You should not feel threatened by atheism, or agnosticism, or a healthy discussion involving science, religion, and reason, and the contradictions therein.  What matters most is that you act as a Christian towards others, even in the act of posting a message on this board.  If you come off as an angry, vitriolic, self-righteous person, then any defense of "Christianity" will be completely undermined.  A lot of people are likely to just judge the emotional tone of your posts ("He's no Christian!!! Listen to him!!!), and then dismiss the content.....Earlier on, I thought you did a fair job of containing your anger on this thread (see one of my previous posts on this thread) and your tendency to make personal attacks on people, something you obviously do not limit to trolls alone.  All I can say is keep working on it, and maybe you will realize that Christ's message was about loving others as much as we can, and not about bashing, attacking and demeaning those we disagree with....

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Correct Teilhardian on all counts. Perhaps you should also post as Job. Oh no, Breidy is already our forum Job. LOL. Or is Moonslav our Job?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RhapsodyInBlue. Show RhapsodyInBlue's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]67Redsox, you are to be applauded on the strength of your convictions on your beliefs regarding birth control and religious beliefs in general. I share them on abortion ( common definition) but do not on contraception. Do you really think that most Catholics are relying on the rhythm method or abstinence? Is creating a hostile environment for the mating of an egg and sperm, using an IUD or condom, equivalent to abortion. Outside of this issue that you are apparently very upset about, what do you think about President Obama  on other issues in respect to your Christian values? How do you rate Obama on Christian issues such as care to the needy, wealth redistribution, and the environment? One other question, would Christ be a Democrat or a Republican ( forget the contraception issue).
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican those who opposed the Emancipation Proclamation were Democrats as were the founders of the KKK.

    Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights act of 1964 bucking his own party with the backing of the Republicans.

    Just something to consider.

    Although if you believe in God you have to believe that he is certainly above our national politics.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RhapsodyInBlue. Show RhapsodyInBlue's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    And both political parties believe what they are doing is best for the country.

    Ultimately the voters will have a choice in 2012 as to which philosophy that they agree with.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Apart from God there can be no objective moral standards. But we live in a world that has objective moral standards. Therefore there has to be a divine moral lawgiver. We refer to that lawgiver as "God".  The moral code of God appeared in many countries and villages that were seperated by steep mountain ranges, seas, and oceans and deep into thick jungles before the days of travel, communication, missionaries and books? Tell me how those similarities got there?  Did the similarities happen by chance. Those who rejected the moral standards of God became atheists.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    That's absurd.  But feel free to wallow in your dogmatic, unjustified moral superiority.

    As to why ancient man - ignorant, with a desperately short life span, struggling to survive with little understanding of the world around him - invented fantasies about omniscient, omnipotent almighty creators?  Do I really have to answer that?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Are you telling me that the moral code of atheists is the same as that of religious people. Over the generations a good moral code has been passed down to you by your ancestors who were themselves religious, they did not become moral through randomness. You tell me what is the moral code of secularists / atheists and tell me what is the moral code of those who fill our prisons. Why do religious people do more good, are more charitable, did not follow Hitler and the Nazis, beat and rape their slaves, follow Sadam Hussein, torture and kill demonsrators, and hold blacks as slaves. Why are more religious people outside of prisons instead of inside them? Why are more atheists inside of prisons. Why are the most despicable of persons in history atheists? If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. But we know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God does exist. The moral atheist is simply hanging in midair on this issue, without any solid footing. Christians, on the other hand, have a rock solid foundation on which to build their beliefs and to live their lives. Our universe is morally good, and it's good because a transcendant and good God created it that way.
    Posted by lowelll[/QUOTE]

    That is terrible psuedo-logic, a feeble attempt to validate your dogma. Tell me, where do these objective moral values exist?  Who agreed them?  How do you measure them?  Do you even know what "objective" means?  In part it means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased".  Unless you are arrogant enough to insist that the moral code you choose to follow is the best and only one, morality is obviously subjective.

    Even if
    "objective moral values" existed - which is completely absurd - your statement presumes that the only possible source is the god you believe in.  So you are using your own dogma to ratify your dogma.

    Way to think, Thinky!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from WesternOregon. Show WesternOregon's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Phillipians 3.8

    8
    What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    "The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propogandists of today's American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:
    'As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.'

    Precisely because America is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise. Rival churches compete for congregations- not the least for the fat tithes that they bring- and the competition is waged with all the aggressive hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God, and the result is something approaching religious mania among today's less educated classes. In England, by contrast, religion under the aegis of the established church has become little more than a pleasant social pastime, scarcely recognizable as religious at all.

    The genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America, and the Founding Fathers would have been horrified.........the founders were most certainly secularists who believed in keeping religion out of politics...."

    Thomas Jefferson:
    "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

    James Madison:
    "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both superstition, bigotry and persecution."

    Ben Franklin:

    "Lighthouses are more useful than churches."

    John Adams:
    "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from WesternOregon. Show WesternOregon's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Matthew 5

    43
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    "I'll begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definitive answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don't understand the evidence, or haven't had time to read the evidence, etc.)..............But there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which I shall call PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle)........The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. Some scientists and other intellectuals are convinced...that the question of God's existence belongs in the forever inaccessible PAP category. From this......they often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of God's existence, and non-existence have exactly equal probability of being right. The view I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary, or TAP category.........and there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can neither be proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent."
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]" I'll begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definitive answer, one way or the other, but we so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don't understand the evidence, or haven't had time to read the evidence, etc.)..............But there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which I shall call PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle)........The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. Some scientists and other intellectuals are convinced...that the question of God's existence belongs in the forever inaccessible PAP category. From this......they often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of God's existence, and non-existence have exactly equal probability of being right. The view I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary, or TAP category.........and there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can neither be proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent."
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    This is the kind of stuff I like...a rational debate on the question of God's existence.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : This is the kind of stuff I like...a rational debate on the question of God's existence.
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    Richard Dawkins is an idol of mine, almost a hero.  Because he is so brilliant and argues his case so eloquently he has become a hate figure for many believers.  But he is scrupulously fair-minded and a must-read for anyone interested in the ongoing discussion we're having even if his conclusion is not the satisfaction of all.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Richard Dawkins is an idol of mine, almost a hero.  Because he is so brilliant and argues his case so eloquently he has become a hate figure for many believers.  But he is scrupulously fair-minded and a must-read for anyone interested in the ongoing discussion we're having even if his conclusion is not the satisfaction of all.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    How you would sum up his position on God's existence?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : How you would sum up his position on God's existence?
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]

    In his own words (paraphrased), gods and other deities almost certainly don't exist.  I love the "almost certainly" i.e. his case is pretty water-tight but he's not arrogant enough to make a final determination in the absense of absolute proof.

    His logic is brilliant, in addition to being understandable without being patronising.  He's an evolutionary biologist that was very famous and well respected long before he took this public stance.  He's also can't resist winding people up at times, hence the title of his book "The God Delusion". 

    He says he doesn't regret becoming a lightening rod and being known as the Atheist Prime even though it now massively overshadows his long and brilliant scientific career.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    The Founding Fathers opinions on religion are no more important to me than those of Letterman or Leno. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are to me of a lower priority to read than reading the Book of Leviticus. The Founding Fathers were slave owners who impregnated them to increase their number of slaves, They were not men of morals and did not deserve any honor. They ordered the whipping of uncooperative slaves and looked the other way. They bought slaves in the town square and then went to church the next day as hippocrites. God has these phonies in his basement tier in Heaven shining the shoes of Martin Luther King. Copies of the Constitution should be used in outhouses when the dried corn cobs run out.       " God Given rights?", Give me a break. The Founding Fathers as stated above did not believe in any God. To them "God Given Rights" was more of the same that protected the upper class and status quo.
     

Share