Jason Collins comes out of the closet

[NASpurs]

Where was Jesus when God was lighting up Sodom and Gomorrah?

Jesus was lying when he said he is the alpha and omega then. Total beta move to not talk back to his daddy.

Where is Jesus during ANYTHING? Why do you question where he is if you don't believe in God?

[Blake]

Since you like to quote scriptures:

Galatians 6:2


2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.




The law of Christ is different from the Jewish laws.

Oh look! Unchanging God changed his mind!

[Koolaid_Man]

Since you like to quote scriptures:

Galatians 6:2


2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.




The law of Christ is different from the Jewish laws.

I seriously doubt Jesus suffered and died for the right to have gay sex

[midnightpulp]

I seriously doubt Jesus suffered and died for the right to have gay sex

You a Christian, Kool?

[Koolaid_Man]

He created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

[Blake]

Where is Jesus during ANYTHING? Why do you question where he is if you don't believe in God?

Jesus said he was around during ot days. Why wouldn't he be?

What difference does it make why I ask?

If you can't answer, just say so and we'll go our separate ways

[NASpurs]

Oh look! Unchanging God changed his mind!

:lmao stop being a faggot and condescending

[NASpurs]

What difference does it make why I ask?

If you can't answer, just say so and we'll go our separate ways

Where is Jesus during ANYTHING? Answer me that.

[Koolaid_Man]

You a Christian, Kool?

yes I'm a pastor....

[jag]

The difference between Blake and some other posters who are intentionally annoying is that Blake blurs the line so much he often can't figure out how not to post like a retard.

I understand that during this difficult time in his life (you know what I'm talking about) he is searching for an identity. I just wish he'd keep searching and not settle on an identity resembling a Haitian man's version of Chumpdumper.

[Blake]

:lmao stop being a faggot and condescending

Stop talking out of your ass so that I have no room to condescend

[Koolaid_Man's Dad]

He created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Boy, I got tears filling up my eyes right now. You finally see the light! You finally see it and have turned toward Jesus and left the homosex behind.

I know beatin' ya black ass with that switch would set ya straight. And set ya straight, I did.

Praise Jesus! My boy ain't taking dick in his booty no longer! My boy gonna meet hisself a nice woman and gimmie a grandchild now. Boy I'll let you take the Oldsmobile out tonight. You get yourself to a bar or club and meet yourself a nice girl. And boy, when I wake up at 2 am for my insulin shot, I wanna see do not disturb hanging from your bedroom door, if ya catch my drift.

[Koolaid_Man]

gay sex is unnatural in the eyes of God....

[Blake]

The difference between Blake and some other posters who are intentionally annoying is that Blake blurs the line so much he often can't figure out how not to post like a retard.

I understand that during this difficult time in his life (you know what I'm talking about) he is searching for an identity. I just wish he'd keep searching and not settle on an identity resembling a Haitian man's version of Chumpdumper.

Your white flag is duly noted.

[DPG21920]

Blake. No where in your quoted passage does it say people on Earth should explicitly go around killing gays. Read what Trill said.

[Koolaid_Man]

Boy, I got tears filling up my eyes right now. You finally see the light! You finally see it and have turned toward Jesus and left the homosex behind.

I know beatin' ya black ass with that switch would set ya straight. And set ya straight, I did.

Praise Jesus! My boy ain't taking dick in his booty no longer! My boy gonna meet hisself a nice woman and gimmie a grandchild now. Boy I'll let you take the Oldsmobile out tonight. You get yourself to a bar or club and meet yourself a nice girl. And boy, when I wake up at 2 am for my insulin shot, I wanna see do not disturb hanging from your bedroom door, if ya catch my drift.

you just keep drinking that coffee I serve.....:lol

[superjames1992]

Anyone know when Russell Westbrook is going to come out?

[Blake]

Is Trill a Bible scholar? Or even an English major? Why are you referring me to him?

[NASpurs]

Stop talking out of your ass so that I have no room to condescend

I show you scripture and I'm talking out of my ass. You show me scripture and you keep at it. Here:

Galatians 6:2
2 r (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote0)Bear one another’s burdens, and (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote1)so fulfill t (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote2)he law of Christ.

[NASpurs]

The difference between Blake and some other posters who are intentionally annoying is that Blake blurs the line so much he often can't figure out how not to post like a retard.

I understand that during this difficult time in his life (you know what I'm talking about) he is searching for an identity. I just wish he'd keep searching and not settle on an identity resembling a Haitian man's version of Chumpdumper.

The guy searches for religious threads like an obsession. Find me a religion thread he hasn't posted it. It doesn't exist.

[Koolaid_Man]

we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

[AaronY]

I show you scripture and I'm talking out of my ass. You show me scripture and you keep at it. Here:

Galatians 6:2


2 r (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote0)Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
That's the problem tho..you can find anything you want in the bible..stuff to support almost any position so it just becomes meaningless white noise

[Koolaid_Man]

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao stop being a faggot and condescending

Just because he's being condescending doesn't mean that his point is null. Why would a perfect God change his mind?

[Koolaid_Man]

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

[Koolaid_Man's Dad]

you just keep drinking that coffee I serve.....:lol

Get ya dick wet tonight, boy. And not like this Collins fella by way of another man's mouth. I know them old temptations gonna still be pulling at ya, but you just think of Jesus if you get any homosex stirrings. Think of the Lord, boy. He'll be sure to turn your dick toward the pussy.

[Koolaid_Man]

Jesus was born to woman and man household...

[Koolaid_Man's Dad]

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Praise Jesus!

[Koolaid_Man]

Get ya dick wet tonight, boy. And not like this Collins fella by way of another man's mouth. I know them old temptations gonna still be pulling at ya, but you just think of Jesus if any get any homosex stirrings. Think of the Lord, boy. He'll be sure to turn your dick toward the pussy.

ok Mid....;-)

[jag]

We weren't engaged in a conversation, much less a debate. Why would you take my observation as a white flag? Unless of course you were just trying to think of what CD would post in that situation.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Oh look! A passage in which God tells his followers to murder people! I thought those weren't in the Bible.

[Koolaid_Man's Dad]

Jesus was born to woman and man household...

Now you get on it and get me a grandchild born to your household. But boy, don't be fuckin' wit no white women. That's my only rule. You play with fire before you play with that white pussy.

[Woo Bum-kon]

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Oh look! Another one!

[Blake]

I show you scripture and I'm talking out of my ass. You show me scripture and you keep at it. Here:

Galatians 6:2
2 r (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote0)Bear one another’s burdens, and (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote1)so fulfill t (http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Galatians%206.2#footnote2)he law of Christ.


All that verse does is raise more of the same questions that you won't answer.

[NASpurs]

Just because he's being condescending doesn't mean that his point is null. Why would a perfect God change his mind?

So let me get this straight, God is perfect. Humans are not. Yet God is personified by everyone. It's a no-win situation. :lol

[Woo Bum-kon]

And lol at the claim that God doesn't want anybody to kill those who think should be "put to death."

:lol Jesus Christ, you Christians are deluded.

[DPG21920]

Is Trill a Bible scholar? Or even an English major? Why are you referring me to him?

What an inherently stupid argument. Trill already explained (along with others) why the passage you cited didnt at all explicitly call for people to run around killing gays. Are you a Bible scholar? Why on Earth then would your own opinion be valid?

[NASpurs]

And lol at the claim that God doesn't want anybody to kill those who think should be "put to death."

:lol Jesus Christ, you Christians are deluded.

But but... you keep posting Old Testament laws and one of them says "Thou shalt not kill".

[Blake]

We weren't engaged in a conversation, much less a debate. Why would you take my observation as a white flag? Unless of course you were just trying to think of what CD would post in that situation.

I engaged you. You swiftly surrendered.

Then went to the personal bio line. Then went to the ChumpDumper imitation line. You're just one line away from hitting the usual hat trick employed by raisers of the white flag.

You're not the first, definitely not the last to deflect and run.

[NASpurs]

Here comes the duo of redzero/Blake to tag team us Christians into submission with their superior intellect, debate skills and logic. :lmao :lmao

[jag]

I engaged you. You swiftly surrendered.

Then went to the personal bio line. Then went to the ChumpDumper imitation line. You're just one line away from hitting the usual hat trick employed by raisers of the white flag.

You're not the first, definitely not the last to deflect and run.

:lol that's an interesting account of things. I don't recall you engaging me in this thread. I rarely read your posts anymore so it wouldn't suprise me if I missed it. The reasons for me scrolling over the majority of your posts are listed above.

[DPG21920]

RZ is a smart guy from what I gather, so has some credibility even if I don't agree always. Blake is just not very smart (at least in the context of most stuff he posts about). But people taking shots at Blake for his personal tragedy is never cool & I've never done it/will not do it. He is dumb though most of the time.

[DPG21920]

So just in summary: the modern day BTs hate Religion & Black people but are crusaders for civil rights while thinking all Christians hate gays and want them to not have civil liberties?

Hopefully that notion has been put to rest

[Blake]

But but... you keep posting Old Testament laws and one of them says "Thou shalt not kill".

Good point. Why does God contradict himself like that?

[AaronY]

^Shittiest cliff notes ever

[DPG21920]

^Shittiest cliff notes ever

Hi! Welcome to SpursTalk. Never seen you around before so I wanted to welcome you as STs part owner. You seem to have potential so if there is anything you need, anything at all please do not hesitate to let me know. I think you'll find ST to be a culturally diverse place where anyone can achieve great things. Think of it like America - only online!

Since today is the first day you have posted (at least I think! Forgive me if I've just missed you as I am incredibly busy) ill offer this advice: have fun!

[Koolaid_Man]

Good point. Why does God contradict himself like that?

thou shalt not kill those abiding by God's law of no gay sex

[Blake]

RZ is a smart guy from what I gather, so has some credibility even if I don't agree always. Blake is just not very smart (at least in the context of most stuff he posts about). But people taking shots at Blake for his personal tragedy is never cool & I've never done it/will not do it. He is dumb though most of the time.

High road and low road all in one post. Bravo.

[DPG21920]

Low road? Saying someone is dumb on here isn't exactly the low road IMO. Ill still stick up for you when people cross the line.

[Homeland Security]

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/jason-collins-former-fiancee-carolyn-moos-had-no-170001023.html

Didn't Jefferson break off his marriage as well? Makes you wonder.

It starts to make sense why the 2003 Nets ran the Princeton offense so well... they already had a lot of experience with backdoor cuts...

[AaronY]

Lol, you know why this guidance counselor schtick failed Dpg? We both know you wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire so the idea that were you were trying to give me benevolent advice as opposed to trying to suck me into your little vortex was a transparent ploy from the start.

[Homeland Security]

RZ is a smart guy from what I gather, so has some credibility even if I don't agree always. Blake is just not very smart (at least in the context of most stuff he posts about). But people taking shots at Blake for his personal tragedy is never cool & I've never done it/will not do it. He is dumb though most of the time.
What a Good Christian, sticking up for the shortbus kid like that.

[Blake]

The guy searches for religious threads like an obsession. Find me a religion thread he hasn't posted it. It doesn't exist.

Probably not.

Most entertaining threads, post for post, imo.

[jag]

RZ is a smart guy from what I gather, so has some credibility even if I don't agree always. Blake is just not very smart (at least in the context of most stuff he posts about). But people taking shots at Blake for his personal tragedy is never cool & I've never done it/will not do it. He is dumb though most of the time.

You're right, that was in poor taste. I was raised better than that.

I would like to offer an apology to anyone who might have been offended.

[Blake]

:lol that's an interesting account of things. I don't recall you engaging me in this thread. I rarely read your posts anymore so it wouldn't suprise me if I missed it. The reasons for me scrolling over the majority of your posts are listed above.

Ok, it was in the Westboro thread where we engaged each other in biblical conversation.

Today.

If you need a direct link to that conversation where you swiftly conceded you were wrong about Jesus being around during Old Testament times, let me know.

And if you need a link back in this thread where you avoided the topic and took a personal jab per the losers usual, again, let me know.

[ElNono]

On a more profound and insightful analysis, why would god give you a dick if you're not going to use it on beasts like this chick:

http://i.imgur.com/OW0p3bx.png

[Homeland Security]

Blake had a personal tragedy? SWEET! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Killakobe81]

Blake. You just said Christians had explicit direct orders to kill gays & your passage absolutely didnt say that. It's not avoiding the bad parts - it's knowing that its not we who do the judging.

I saw Blake's quote in the other thread ...but fail to see direct orders.
Direct would be Col. Jessup issuing a code red on Santiago ...

[jag]

Ok, it was in the Westboro thread where we engaged each other in biblical conversation.

Today.

If you need a direct link to that conversation where you swiftly conceded you were wrong about Jesus being around during Old Testament times, let me know.

And if you need a link back in this thread where you avoided the topic and took a personal jab per the losers usual, again, let me know.

The last question you asked me was ridiculous. If you can't decipher the meaning of that passage then I'm sorry. I don't care enough to respond to each and every simple-minded question that enters your mind.

Jesus was not alive as a being on earth during the OT. Present evidence otherwise or go bother Koolaid Man.

[Killakobe81]

I seriously doubt Jesus suffered and died for the right to have gay sex

Yall have to admit that was funny

[Blake]

I saw Blake's quote in the other thread ...but fail to see direct orders.
Direct would be Col. Jessup issuing a code red on Santiago ...

Tell me in your own words what "they shall surely be put to death" means.

[Killakobe81]

On a more profound and insightful analysis, why would god give you a dick if you're not going to use it on beasts like this chick:

http://i.imgur.com/OW0p3bx.png

Amen brother El!,
Hey more chicks left for us as long as they don't switchhit I'm cool ...I ain't God so I say give everyone a bible and let them reach there own understanding or reject the word plenty of straight people live in sin too

[cesare borgia]

Leviticus quotes God on his laws.

He says to kill gays.

God killed gays himself.

These are facts and cannot be disputed.

But keep trying. :tu

Under the Old Covenant this is justify, but the Messiah save us from the penalty of the law. We are in the Renew Covenant age. We are in the age of mercy and grace giving men space to repent, before judgement.

[DPG21920]

Lol, you know why this guidance counselor schtick failed Dpg? We both know you wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire so the idea that were you were trying to give me benevolent advice as opposed to trying to suck me into your little vortex was a transparent ploy from the start.

Aaron - that is simply untrue. I will go out of my way to help anyone. Ask FkLA. He welshed on me, spammed my forum with shemale porn but when push came to shove I gave him real advice and tried to help him.

[Blake]

The last question you asked me was ridiculous. If you can't decipher the meaning of that passage then I'm sorry. I don't care enough to respond to each and every simple-minded question that enters your mind.

I deciphered it just fine, imo. If you want to call it simple minded and ignore it, so be it.

I'm simply showing you we engaged in conversation. Today.


Jesus was not alive as a being on earth during the OT. Present evidence otherwise or go bother Koolaid Man.

You want me to present evidence that God was alive?

Rofl. Awesome. First time for everything.

[AaronY]

nice try, don't believe you for a second...at least Jesus loves me tho, this I know

[DPG21920]

nice try, don't believe you for a second...at least Jesus loves me tho, this I know

Why would you not believe me?

[Killakobe81]

Aaron - that is simply untrue. I will go out of my way to help anyone. Ask FkLA. He welshed on me, spammed my forum with shemale porn but when push came to shove I gave him real advice and tried to help him.

He welshed on you too?

You need to stop making them internet bets homey ...

[AaronY]

Lol, again with the tractor beam

[FkLA]

No hate towards Christians or any other religion, but how can you guys follow a book written by man or believe in something that youve never seen? How do you get yourself to believe and have faith in something like that, even making it a big part of your life ?

[Killakobe81]

nice try, don't believe you for a second...at least Jesus loves me tho, this I know

Cuz the bible tells u so?

[AaronY]

On a more profound and insightful analysis, why would god give you a dick if you're not going to use it on beasts like this chick:

http://i.imgur.com/OW0p3bx.png
I actually know of a girl who's like tens times hitter than that chick at least IMO and I'm obv a huge fan of the girl with the kid since she's in my sig and all..but I'm afraid to post pictures of her or tell any of my friends about her because I'm afraid shell like make her instagram, twitter, and facebook siper private and kick off a bunch of the peeping toms like me. It's creepy how obsessed I am with this girl, I check out her shit like four times a day and it like motivates me to workout and get hsndsome in the hopes that someday I too can get a heavenly blessed beauty such as her

[jag]

You want me to present evidence that God was alive?

Rofl. Awesome. First time for everything.

This is a perfect example of the type of nonsense I referred to earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if that's genuinely how you interpreted my post. Thank you for proving my point though.

[Killakobe81]

I actually know of a girl who's like tens times hitter than that chick at least IMO and I'm obv a huge fan of the girl with the kid since she's in my sig and all..but I'm afraid to post pictures of her or tell any of my friends about her because I'm afraid shell like make her instagram, twitter, and facebook and kick off super private bunch of the peeping toms like me. It's creepy how obsessed I am with this girl, I check out her shit like four times a day and it like motivates me to workout in the hopes that someday I too can get a heavenly blessed beauty such as her

Is she a regular chick or some model?
And yes I have seen hotter but come on she is hotter than 90% of the pussy anyone here has gotten myself included ...only a few back in my prime were close. I have had cuter but body wise with a cute face she is tough to beat.

[Homeland Security]

I actually know of a girl who's like tens times hitter than that chick at least IMO and I'm obv a huge fan of the girl with the kid since she's in my sig and all..but I'm afraid to post pictures of her or tell any of my friends about her because I'm afraid shell like make her instagram, twitter, and facebook and kick off super private bunch of the peeping toms like me. It's creepy how obsessed I am with this girl, I check out her shit like four times a day and it like motivates me to workout and get hsndsome in the hopes that someday I too can get a heavenly blessed beauty such as her
Sec. 42.072. STALKING. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct that:(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person's family or household or for an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship; or(C) that an offense will be committed against the other person's property;(2) causes the other person, a member of the other person's family or household, or an individual with whom the other person has a dating relationship to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person's property; and(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person's family or household or for an individual with whom the person has a dating relationship; or(C) that an offense will be committed against the person's property.(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the actor has previously been convicted of an offense under this section or of an offense under any of the following laws that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under this section:(1) the laws of another state;(2) the laws of a federally recognized Indian tribe;(3) the laws of a territory of the United States; or(4) federal law.(c) For purposes of this section, a trier of fact may find that different types of conduct described by Subsection (a), if engaged in on more than one occasion, constitute conduct that is engaged in pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct.(d) In this section, "dating relationship," "family," "household," and "member of a household" have the meanings assigned by Chapter 71, Family Code.

[AaronY]

Is she a regular chick or some model?
And yes I have seen hotter but come on she is hotter than 90% of the pussy anyone here has gotten myself included ...only a few back in my prime were close. I have had cuter but body wise with a cute face she is tough to beat.

Just some regular chick..I'll send you a pm if you keep the shit to yourself, just come back here and review the evidence

[AaronY]

Homeland Security if you saw this girl, I mean seriously

[Homeland Security]

Homeland Security if you saw this girl, I mean seriously
http://solipsism2.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/grace.jpg

[Homeland Security]

Homeland Security if you saw this girl, I mean seriously


Sorry, I don't see what the big deal is

[Chinook]

They both hinge on the same non-scientific premise: the deity. Scientifically speaking, their value is garbage and it's a showstopper to address the actual logical conclusion ("more scientific research on this area is needed").

I personally recognize that religion can be a psychological crutch that in some instances help people. Be it through fear ("god is punishing you for doing X"), intimidation (the whole what you do will land you in 'paradise'/'hell' ), etc, for some people it works.

As such a tool, I think there's some usefulness there.

No. That's not the case at all. Theism and Religion are orthogonal: You can be a religious atheist (like believing in probability like Two-Face does) and a non-religious theist. The split between religion an science is epistemological, while the split between theism and atheism is metaphysical. In short; neither atheism nor theism is a scientific view. That's like saying that the belief in multiple universes is scientific or non-scientific. Science can not disprove the existence of a god because it can only explain the reality in which it exists.

Essentially, science is the process toward understanding the universe we live in; everything that may occur outside our universe (or multiverse) is completely hidden. So if a god did create this universe, ignited the Big Bang and all that, then science could never tell. All it can do is figure out the physical causes, the how if you will. It can't say the why. Science doesn't care about the why in a metaphysical sense; it just doesn't apply.

Theism is tied down by people trying to pin religion to it. The belief in god doesn't necessitate the belief in anything inexplicable happening in the universe. Both theists and atheists can believe the same things about the universe. The difference comes when the atheists decide to break the causal closure of the physical and assume that some magic happened which started this whole thing, while theists believe that it was flicked into motion intentionally. No matter how much science progresses, there will never be a true answer to that question. If we discovered what caused the Big Bang, we still won't know what caused the thing that caused it and so on. If we find out the multiverse is cyclical we still won't know what created it, and so on again.

When you get down to the end, it doesn't make more sense to say nothing created anything. We know that everything is caused by something, but we are to believe it was all caused by nothing? Why is that the null hypothesis? It shouldn't be. It should be the null to believe our creation is consistent with the things we create. Atheists should have to prove why we should change our deductive chains in this case.

tl;dr: Atheism is a faith-based view too. Science doesn't explain the why, and it's not supposed to. It doesn't apply to this argument.

But I agree about religion being healthy when used correctly.It was created for a reason, and that was not originally to brain-wash people. I don't know why it had to go so far astray, though.

[Blake]

This is a perfect example of the type of nonsense I referred to earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if that's genuinely how you interpreted my post. Thank you for proving my point though.

If we agree that the Bible says Jesus is God, then yeah, that's exactly what you asked me to do.

If not, then feel free to state what your opinion of what you believe Jesus to be, including his limits.

Or take some more personal jabs. No skin off my back either way.

[I. Hustle]

No hate towards Christians or any other religion, but how can you guys follow a book written by man or believe in something that youve never seen? How do you get yourself to believe and have faith in something like that, even making it a big part of your life ?

Why not just let them believe in it? I mean, I can understand the in your face a holes that condemn you but the same can be said about people like DoK.

Let people believe what they want. If they choose to believe the bible then fine if they choose to not believe in any religion then it's cool too.

[DPG21920]

He welshed on you too?

You need to stop making them internet bets homey ...

Ya - 3 people welshed: Kool for $500, FkLa for $25 & the worst of them all Dallaskd for $500 after I paid him $500 on my lost bet. Good news is I've been paid on all other bets so I'm still in the positive.

[Blake]

No. That's not the case at all. Theism and Religion are orthogonal: You can be a religious atheist (like believing in probability like Two-Face does) and a non-religious theist. The split between religion an science is epistemological, while the split between theism and atheism is metaphysical. In short; neither atheism nor theism is a scientific view. That's like saying that the belief in multiple universes is scientific or non-scientific. Science can not disprove the existence of a god because it can only explain the reality in which it exists.

Essentially, science is the process toward understanding the universe we live in; everything that may occur outside our universe (or multiverse) is completely hidden. So if a god did create this universe, ignited the Big Bang and all that, then science could never tell. All it can do is figure out the physical causes, the how if you will. It can't say the why. Science doesn't care about the why in a metaphysical sense; it just doesn't apply.

Theism is tied down by people trying to pin religion to it. The belief in god doesn't necessitate the belief in anything inexplicable happening in the universe. Both theists and atheists can believe the same things about the universe. The difference comes when the atheists decide to break the causal closure of the physical and assume that some magic happened which started this whole thing, while theists believe that it was flicked into motion intentionally. No matter how much science progresses, there will never be a true answer to that question. If we discovered what caused the Big Bang, we still won't know what caused the thing that caused it and so on. If we find out the multiverse is cyclical we still won't know what created it, and so on again.

When you get down to the end, it doesn't make more sense to say nothing created anything. We know that everything is caused by something, but we are to believe it was all caused by nothing? Why is that the null hypothesis? It shouldn't be. It should be the null to believe our creation is consistent with the things we create. Atheists should have to prove why we should change our deductive chains in this case.

tl;dr: Atheism is a faith-based view too. Science doesn't explain the why, and it's not supposed to. It doesn't apply to this argument.

But I agree about religion being healthy when used correctly.It was created for a reason, and that was not originally to brain-wash people. I don't know why it had to go so far astray, though.

Atheism being faith based is bull.

We're all born atheists. It takes no amount of faith to not believe.

[Chinook]

Atheism being faith based is bull.

We're all born atheists. It takes no amount of faith to not believe.

We're born agnostic. Atheism is the strong view that god doesn't exist. Taking a strong view without proof means you take it on faith. If this whole time you were calling for agnosticism, then I could sympathize.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The origins of religion were totally to brainwash people and control the first civilizations. You should research how religion was used in Babylonia.

[Chinook]

The origins of religion were totally to brainwash people and control the first civilizations. You should research how religion was used in Babylonia.

Nah, I already believe we were on the decline by then. I mean the first Neanderthal that looked up in the sky and tried to make sense of it all. I think it all went to shit when cro-magnons came on the scene.

[hater]

The origins of religion were totally to brainwash people and control the first civilizations. You should research how religion was used in Babylonia.

religion was originated by primitive man's fear of famine and natural disasters. Like everything, corrupt individuals at positions of power started using it to their advantage. But don't be fooled, religion comes from humankind primitive beliefs of fear of the unknown and of disaster.

[FkLA]

Why not just let them believe in it? I mean, I can understand the in your face a holes that condemn you but the same can be said about people like DoK.

Let people believe what they want. If they choose to believe the bible then fine if they choose to not believe in any religion then it's cool too.

More a question out of curiosity than anything tbh. I dont hate or have a problem with people that are religious, as long as theyre not extreme.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

religion was originated by primitive man's fear of famine and natural disasters. Like everything, corrupt individuals at positions of power started using it to their advantage. But don't be fooled, religion comes from humankind primitive beliefs of fear of the unknown and of disaster.
Point being that the first usages of religion such as religion used in Babylonia was to brainwash people...

[hater]

Point being that the first usages of religion such as religion used in Babylonia was to brainwash people...

yes and no. Nobody can really tell with certainty every case of organized religion is meant to brainwash people or started like that. Some religions like the Christian started in secrecy and at fear of death (ancient rome, christians being fed to the beasts, etc) Eventually they were corrupted at some point after the foundation of Catholicism and Popes. But again, a generalization such as the one you make is misleading.

[Blake]

Why not just let them believe in it? I mean, I can understand the in your face a holes that condemn you but the same can be said about people like DoK.

Let people believe what they want. If they choose to believe the bible then fine if they choose to not believe in any religion then it's cool too.

I don't care what people believe in until they start to keep our society from moving forward.

Bible beaters like Broussard that denounce Collins on ESPN holds us back.

[Trill Clinton]

No hate towards Christians or any other religion, but how can you guys follow a book written by man or believe in something that youve never seen? How do you get yourself to believe and have faith in something like that, even making it a big part of your life ?

its called having faith my friend. when you have a close relationship with the lord, you will see him move in your life. i know several people who were lost and in despair before they were saved. God is working out a plan according to his purpose...God has made a way for you and I to be saved. i chose to walk every day in faith and my life has been blessed for doing so, amen. not trying to get to preachy but this song is perfect for this question.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb0nDJRe40

[Blake]

Under the Old Covenant this is justify, but the Messiah save us from the penalty of the law. We are in the Renew Covenant age. We are in the age of mercy and grace giving men space to repent, before judgement.

I feel sorry for the people that lived in the age of zero tolerance.

[jag]

If we agree that the Bible says Jesus is God, then yeah, that's exactly what you asked me to do.

If not, then feel free to state what your opinion of what you believe Jesus to be, including his limits.

Or take some more personal jabs. No skin off my back either way.

I'm about to leave work and go for a run. I doubt I'll have the patience or desire to address this topic any further once I'm relaxing at home later this evening.

Your constant tendency to be intentionally obtuse (I assume it's intentional) practically ruins any chance of having a worthwhile discussion with you. That being said, maybe we can go into this another time. Not because I want to, but because I feel that at least attempting to have a mannerly discussion with you is the Christian thing to do.

God Bless you and your family.

[Blake]

We're born agnostic. Atheism is the strong view that god doesn't exist. Taking a strong view without proof means you take it on faith. If this whole time you were calling for agnosticism, then I could sympathize.

definitely not born agnostic.

but your using the strictest definition of atheism. I'm using the loosest.

[Blake]

I'm about to leave work and go for a run. I doubt I'll have the patience or desire to address this topic any further once I'm relaxing at home later this evening.

Your constant tendency to be intentionally obtuse (I assume it's intentional) practically ruins any chance of having a worthwhile discussion with you. That being said, maybe we can go into this another time. Not because I want to, but because I feel that at least attempting to have a mannerly discussion with you is the Christian thing to do.

God Bless you and your family.

Not being intentionally obtuse. You're obviously just out of your element here.

Is what it is.

[Chinook]

definitely not born agnostic.

but your using the strictest definition of atheism. I'm using the loosest.

Atheists like to obscure the definition of their view to make it seem more reasonable. There are two strong views, theism and atheism, and then there's a sea of agnosticism and apathy. It'd be like if I tried to pretend like being a theist could mean that I just don't want to say for sure that a god DOESN'T exist. It would seem like a bad cop out. That's how I feel when atheists try to pull that stunt.

[FkLA]

its called having faith my friend. when you have a close relationship with the lord, you will see him move in your life. i know several people who were lost and in despair before they were saved. God is working out a plan according to his purpose...God has made a way for you and I to be saved. i chose to walk every day in faith and my life has been blessed for doing so, amen. not trying to get to preachy but this song is perfect for this question.

The concept of religion is not a bad thing. It helps people through alot of things--whether it be death, rough times, or simply the unknown. That doesnt make it real though man. When I sit back and think for myself instead of what I was fed its really hard to believe any of it. Im with both hater and DoK, in that religion likely originated as a way for people to cope with fears and later used as a tool to brainwash and control.

[DeadlyDynasty]

:lmao
but we will pay the penalty for them because sin( in this case homosexuality) has its consequences. i pray when that day comes, the blood that is upon them is the blood of jesus, amen.
My trigga Trill with the goods...Best post since 2009 (Marcus Bryant)

:rollin

[FkLA]

Again, no hate towards anybody that chooses to be religious (basically all my family is) but it just doesnt make sense to me. I feel like part of me would have to be intentionally naive and have a strong desire to believe to begin with for it to make sense.

[Legacy]

Good for him. He seems like a very down-to-earth and sharp guy with a great head on his shoulders. All the best to him... Peace, blessings, & all of that good stuff. That is all.

[Trill Clinton]

The concept of religion is not a bad thing. It helps people through alot of things--whether it be death, rough times, or simply the unknown. That doesnt make it real though man. When I sit back and think for myself instead of what I was fed its really hard to believe any of it. Im with both hater and DoK, in that religion likely originated to as a way for people to cope with fears and later used as a tool to brainwash and control.

God speaks of false prophets so yes, there are those "leaders" who prey on the weak and brainwash them.

i understand where you're coming from. before i was saved i was in the same mindset as you...i grew up in the church( very religious family) and once i turned 18 i rebelled and decided to turn from God and became a full time sinner. i won't get into specifics but one night my life was about to change for the absolute worse and i remember closing my eyes and praying for the first time in years...by the time i finished my prayer and opened my eyes, God saved me. call it what you want but from that point on my life changed for the better.

everyone has a choice, it is up to you the individual to decide how to live their life. that's why when people judge me for my beliefs, i don't judge theirs. who am i to judge??? i don't give a testimony to every non believer i encounter because i wouldn't want to hear the opposite end of the spectrum from them. i chose to walk with God because he was there for me. when i abandoned him and let satan influence me, he didn't give up on me. i owe it to him to follow his word.

[DisAsTerBot]

God speaks of false prophets so yes, there are those "leaders" who prey on the weak and brainwash them.

i understand where you're coming from. before i was saved i was in the same mindset as you...i grew up in the church( very religious family) and once i turned 18 i rebelled and decided to turn from God and became a full time sinner. i won't get into specifics but one night my life was about to change for the absolute worse and i remember closing my eyes and praying for the first time in years...by the time i finished my prayer and opened my eyes, God saved me. call it what you want but from that point on my life changed for the better.

everyone has a choice, it is up to you the individual to decide how to live their life. that's why when people judge me for my beliefs, i don't judge theirs. who am i to judge??? i don't give a testimony to every non believer i encounter because i wouldn't want to hear the opposite end of the spectrum from them. i chose to walk with God because he was there for me. when i abandoned him and let satan influence me, he didn't give up on me. i owe it to him to follow his word.

which god?

[hater]

tbh this new breed of morons that hate on religion and dont' want any mention of religion in any type of public speaking platform are as bad or worse than the most religious idiots. for example that guy that has his HBO show. :lmao these ppl are more pathetic than the most religious individuals out there

[Trill Clinton]

which god?

the father of Jesus. before you type out a post, i'm letting you know right now, you have a history of lurking and waiting for me to post and quote me. if you're looking to mock my God then by all means go ahead. i won't be going back n forth with you.

[DisAsTerBot]

the father of Jesus. before you type out a post, i'm letting you know right now, you have a history of lurking and waiting for me to post and quote me. if you're looking to mock my God then by all means go ahead. i won't be going back n forth with you.

Lol ok

serious question. It just seems kind of convenient that the same god your family believes in is the one who saved you. How do you know it wasn't a god of a religion you weren't raised to believe in? serious question.

[Trill Clinton]

Lol ok

serious question. It just seems kind of convenient that the same god your family believes in is the one who saved you. How do you know it wasn't a god of a religion you weren't raised to believe in? serious question.

no disrespect to other religions but exodus 20:3 says "you shall have no other Gods before me". i prayed to the father of Jesus Christ and he answered my prayers, i didn't pray to buddah or allah. again, it all goes back to faith, doggie.

[DisAsTerBot]

no disrespect to other religions but exodus 20:3 says "you shall have no other Gods before me". i prayed to the father of Jesus Christ and he answered my prayers, i didn't pray to buddah or allah. again, it all goes back to faith, doggie.

so do you have faith that if you were brought up in a household who prays to buddah that you would pray to jesus?

[ElNono]

No. That's not the case at all. Theism and Religion are orthogonal: You can be a religious atheist (like believing in probability like Two-Face does) and a non-religious theist. The split between religion an science is epistemological, while the split between theism and atheism is metaphysical. In short; neither atheism nor theism is a scientific view. That's like saying that the belief in multiple universes is scientific or non-scientific. Science can not disprove the existence of a god because it can only explain the reality in which it exists.

That's a well known logical fallacy: see 'argument from ignorance'. THAT is the reason science isn't in the business of proving a negative.


Essentially, science is the process toward understanding the universe we live in; everything that may occur outside our universe (or multiverse) is completely hidden. So if a god did create this universe, ignited the Big Bang and all that, then science could never tell. All it can do is figure out the physical causes, the how if you will. It can't say the why. Science doesn't care about the why in a metaphysical sense; it just doesn't apply.

You really need to brush up on both what science is, the scientific process, what's involved in it, etc. Terms such as 'testable', 'falsifiable', etc.

The freestyling you posted above would make any respectable scientist feel the same way Christians feel about the Westboro Baptists, tbh.


Theism is tied down by people trying to pin religion to it. The belief in god doesn't necessitate the belief in anything inexplicable happening in the universe. Both theists and atheists can believe the same things about the universe. The difference comes when the atheists decide to break the causal closure of the physical and assume that some magic happened which started this whole thing, while theists believe that it was flicked into motion intentionally. No matter how much science progresses, there will never be a true answer to that question. If we discovered what caused the Big Bang, we still won't know what caused the thing that caused it and so on. If we find out the multiverse is cyclical we still won't know what created it, and so on again.

Incorrect. Science has no problem in saying "We don't know yet". It doesn't automatically attributes the unknown to some deity/magical being. That's entirely a theist construction (the 'god of the gaps').


When you get down to the end, it doesn't make more sense to say nothing created anything. We know that everything is caused by something, but we are to believe it was all caused by nothing? Why is that the null hypothesis? It shouldn't be. It should be the null to believe our creation is consistent with the things we create. Atheists should have to prove why we should change our deductive chains in this case.

tl;dr: Atheism is a faith-based view too. Science doesn't explain the why, and it's not supposed to. It doesn't apply to this argument.

But I agree about religion being healthy when used correctly.It was created for a reason, and that was not originally to brain-wash people. I don't know why it had to go so far astray, though.

When you get down to to the end, you can simply say "I don't know yet, we'll look into it", or you can start making stuff up about some fairy in the sky. One of them isn't serious, IMO.

As pointed out in my previous post, and completely ignored by you, both religion and theism hinge on the same non-scientific premise: a deity. Some non-observable, non-testable, non-falsifiable magical being, which is the reason science should have zero interest in religion/theism.

[Slim Charles]

All y'all fools is wrong. The reason religion started is because people had no idea how to explain aliens. THose aliens came down and brought all this superior technology and looked super human to the people that were here. They lived like gods and knocked up bitches left and right. Man looked more like an ape before these aliens started tapping that ass. Then the offspring didn't have as much hair and were smarter than the humans at the time.

Aliens ni66as... aliens.

[ElNono]

http://i43.tinypic.com/4lhcsx.jpg

[Trill Clinton]

so do you have faith that if you were brought up in a household who prays to buddah that you would pray to jesus?

seriously?

[FkLA]

Are there multiple gods, Trill? Jesus' father, Allah, Buddah, etc theyre all real ?

[Chinook]

That's a well known logical fallacy: see 'argument from ignorance'. THAT is the reason science isn't in the business of proving a negative.

No, this isn't an argument from science; that's the point. It's not applicable. If a god exists, he's above the rules of science. We could (in theory) get to the end and still not disprove the existence of god. Science can't disprove anything outside its realm. That's like saying sociology can explain chemical phenomena.


You really need to brush up on both what science is, the scientific process, what's involved in it, etc. Terms such as 'testable', 'falsifiable', etc.

The freestyling you posted above would make any respectable scientist feel the same way Christians feel about the Westboro Baptists, tbh.

That's the same incorrect understanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying science isn't good enough. I'm saying that science by definition can only go so far. Anything metaphysical is unknowable by science. That's why they call it METAphysics.


Incorrect. Science has no problem in saying "We don't know yet". It doesn't automatically attributes the unknown to some deity/magical being. That's entirely a theist construction (the 'god of the gaps').

Once again, we're not talking about gaps in science. We're talking about science's general apathy to why. Why is a meta-question. Science doesn't answer meta-questions. Just like a computer program has no idea why it's doing what it's doing.


When you get down to to the end, you can simply say "I don't know yet, we'll look into it", or you can start making stuff up about some fairy in the sky. One of them isn't serious, IMO.

As pointed out in my previous post, and completely ignored by you, both religion and theism hinge on the same non-scientific premise: a deity. Some non-observable, non-testable, non-falsifiable magical being, which is the reason science should have zero interest in religion/theism.

I think I've already addressed above why you won't be able to simply say, "I don't know yet." Explaining how everything works doesn't preclude the idea that it works the way it does for a reason.

I didn't fail to address your observation. The first few lines in my response addressed it.


That's not the case at all. Theism and Religion are orthogonal: You can be a religious atheist (like believing in probability like Two-Face does) and a non-religious theist. The split between religion and science is epistemological, while the split between theism and atheism is metaphysical. In short; neither atheism nor theism is a scientific view.

You can disagree with that stance, but to act like I didn't say anything is disingenuous.

It's clear you saw my post, assumed I was making a certain argument, and filled in your replies without actually reading what I'm saying. I barely disagree with your normative stances. I'm trying to delineate the boundaries of theism and religion so that people can actually understand the extensions of their arguments.

I don't think science should take theism into account. I just wrote that long-ass post explaining why it doesn't make sense to take theism into account. But science shouldn't take atheism into account, either. There's no need for an answer to that meta-question to do science. God's existence doesn't prevent any scientific truths from being discovered, and the same goes for god's potential non-existence.

[DPG21920]

I don't care what people believe in until they start to keep our society from moving forward.

Bible beaters like Broussard that denounce Collins on ESPN holds us back.

What? Some of the greatest minds of all time and currently today are religious.

[HI-FI]

it's hard to believe a thread on buttfucking could create such a discussion.

[hater]

What? Some of the greatest minds of all time and currently today are religious.

yup.

not to mention all the great artists, musicians that helped Europe become the leader of the world. Most of those did it in name of the Church.

We'd probably all be chinese or persian if not for the Church in the middle ages. europe was a pathetic shithole but the Church somehow put a stop to that IMO

[DPG21920]

Just goes to show you a big reason why Republicans lost the election IMO. They thought no one cares about this stuff, but pretty much everyone has an opinion on it.

Right or wrong, the moral/soft issues matter. Errr one and their momma has an opinion on things like this, but ask the average Joe about fixing the economy and most of the time you get blank looks.

[hater]

If you ever played Civilization and know what a culture bomb is. Europe's culture bomb was mainly financed and fed by the Church.

[ElNono]

No, this isn't an argument from science; that's the point. It's not applicable. If a god exists, he's above the rules of science. We could (in theory) get to the end and still not disprove the existence of god. Science can't disprove anything outside its realm. That's like saying sociology can explain chemical phenomena.

Are you saying your argument is illogical? That would actually make sense.

In order for science to disprove anything, you need to present a testable theory. Presenting a deity as a theory is non-scientific: it's not testable.

You're also applying a bad analogy: both sociology and chemistry are sciences. Theism isn't.


That's the same incorrect understanding of what I'm saying. I'm not saying science isn't good enough. I'm saying that science by definition can only go so far. Anything metaphysical is unknowable by science. That's why they call it METAphysics.

Metaphysics is non-empirical. Of course it has no place in science, and it never will.


Once again, we're not talking about gaps in science. We're talking about science's general apathy to why. Why is a meta-question. Science doesn't answer meta-questions. Just like a computer program has no idea why it's doing what it's doing.

No, science strives to answer all the questions. The reality is that certain questions cannot be answered right now. Could be because technology hasn't evolved enough yet, because of insurmountable time constrains, etc. So when it cannot answer a question, the result is: "We don't know yet", not some magical/metaphysical attribution to the observation. If science did that, there would be no incentive to further research. Every unknown would automatically be "metaphysical/god/deity" and move on.


I think I've already addressed above why you won't be able to simply say, "I don't know yet." Explaining how everything works doesn't preclude the idea that it works the way it does for a reason.

That makes no sense. If you don't know something, it's perfectly fine to say exactly that.

When you try to explain how everything works and you have missing pieces, you can either say "I don't know yet" or you can start making stuff up about deities, metaphysics and all that baloney.


I didn't fail to address your observation. The first few lines in my response addressed it.

You can disagree with that stance, but to act like I didn't say anything is disingenuous.

But you didn't address it. You keep bringing up imaginary stuff that has nothing to do with science. If your stance is "I believe in metaphysics and invisible dudes in the sky that have nothing to do with science" then, okay.


It's clear you saw my post, assumed I was making a certain argument, and filled in your replies without actually reading what I'm saying. I barely disagree with your normative stances. I'm trying to delineate the boundaries of theism and religion so that people can actually understand the extensions of their arguments.

I don't think science should take theism into account. I just wrote that long-ass post explaining why it doesn't make sense to take theism into account. But science shouldn't take atheism into account, either. There's no need for an answer to that meta-question to do science. God's existence doesn't prevent any scientific truths from being discovered, and the same goes for god's potential non-existence.

You replied to my post where I stated that the logical conclusion from not knowing is stating "We don't know who created what yet, further research is needed".

I wasn't making an argument to defend/attack theism/atheism/religion. It's clear anybody can believe in whatever the fuck they want.

[hater]

In order for science to disprove anything, you need to present a testable theory. Presenting a deity as a theory is non-scientific: it's not testable.


I think that's his point. Science does not have the capability to prove or disprove the existence of God. At least for the moment.

[ElNono]

I think that's his point. Science does not have the capability to prove or disprove the existence of God. At least for the moment.

Somebody would need to present a observable, testable theory of god. That there's no such theory isn't a flaw of science, it's a flaw of the theory's proponent.

[Venti Quattro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uYgHgm3s8I

[Legacy]

it's hard to believe a thread on buttfucking could create such a discussion.

I know, right? :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Just goes to show you a big reason why Republicans lost the election IMO. They thought no one cares about this stuff, but pretty much everyone has an opinion on it.

Right or wrong, the moral/soft issues matter. Errr one and their momma has an opinion on things like this, but ask the average Joe about fixing the economy and most of the time you get blank looks.
Which is everything that's wrong with this country, both from the Republican and liberal perspective. My views on the right wing bible belt are obvious so there's no need to go further on det one, but I'm sick of liberal politicians whoring gay marriage to pander to liberals when their economic and foreign policy views suck.

I bring up gay marriage when it comes to religion, but politics wise, it's pretty obvious that gay marriage being universally legal is inevitable in this country, so supporting the legalization of gay marriage shouldn't be enough reason to send someone to congress, or in Obama's case the white house. He's a major example of a liberal politician who uses social issues to get liberal votes in spite of the fact he's a corporate and zionist shill.

[hater]

Somebody would need to present a observable, testable theory of god. That there's no such theory isn't a flaw of science, it's a flaw of the theory's proponent.

It would be if someone wanted to use today's science to prove the existence of God. IMO what he is saying is that existence of God is currently beyond the realm and capabilities of Science. Remember Science is always evolving. You could not expect to prove the existence of Atoms in the year 650B.C. does not mean eventually science could not evolve to prove such thing.

[jag]

Quoting Old Testament passages as a way to prove your point only shows your ignorance. *If Christians followed OT "Law" they wouldn't be called "Christians" considering there is no "Christ" in the OT.


I found the answer via teh google.

Turns out you're wrong, fwiw.


Which part? *Was Jesus alive in the OT?



John 8

56*Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57*Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58*Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.


I think this implies that he is saying that he was "I am".

If he wasn't, then what exactly is Jesus? A man or God?




Jesus was not alive as a being on earth during the OT.

Please show me any scriptural evidence to the contrary.

[Chinook]

Are you saying your argument is illogical? That would actually make sense.

In order for science to disprove anything, you need to present a testable theory. Presenting a deity as a theory is non-scientific: it's not testable.

You're also applying a bad analogy: both sociology and chemistry are sciences. Theism isn't.

See, this why is you don't understand what I'm saying. Metaphysics isn't something a person chooses to believe. It's a realm of questions that exist in the intellectual universe. The question, "Is there a reason for all this?" Is something you can say yes to, no to, or IDGAF to, but it's not something you can believe or not belief in. Metaphysics have no place in science because science doesn't strive to answer those questions. Science is based on empiricism, not rationalism. That doesn't make science superior; it just makes them different.

It doesn't matter that both sociology and chemistry are sciences. If theism were a science, then there'd be no need for an analogy in the first place. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't use incompatible disciplines to define each other. Sociology isn't pointless just because it can't explain chemistry. In the same way, metaphysics isn't pointless just because it doesn't explain science.

Theism isn't a theory; it's a belief. It goes beyond science. In that same way, atheism also goes beyond science. Neither one affects the workability of scientific theories. When was the last time a belief in god (not belief in a religion) got in the way of science?


No, science strives to answer all the questions. The reality is that certain questions cannot be answered right now. Could be because technology hasn't evolved enough yet, because of insurmountable time constrains, etc. So when it cannot answer a question, the result is: "We don't know yet", not some magical/metaphysical attribution to the observation. If science did that, there would be no incentive to further research. Every unknown would automatically be "metaphysical/god/deity" and move on.

Name a single "why" that was ascertained empirically. Don't list a how, like explaining that gravity is why the Earth moves around the sun. A genuine motive/reason that explains some natural process.


But you didn't address it. You keep bringing up imaginary stuff that has nothing to do with science. If your stance is "I believe in metaphysics and invisible dudes in the sky that have nothing to do with science" then, okay.

Yeah, once again, this retort stems from you misunderstanding what metaphysics is. It's not mysticism or supernaturalism, like you seem to think. I showed why religion doesn't have to be based in theism, and why theism doesn't have to entail religion. That DOES entirely address the idea that they are both based in the same premise; they're not.


You replied to my post where I stated that the logical conclusion from not knowing is stating "We don't know who created what yet, further research is needed".

I wasn't making an argument to defend/attack theism/atheism/religion. It's clear anybody can believe in whatever the fuck they want.

The whole point of my argument is that taking the strong view that god doesn't exists is neither necessary nor helpful when pursuing science. You can explain how the universe works in its entirety without even addressing the notion of god. Science doesn't answer why, because why isn't determined through empiricism. It's determined (albeit by no means definitively or even accurately) through rationalism. Both science and metaphysics guide humans. In fact, metaphysics guides science in the first place.

[ElNono]

It would be if someone wanted to use today's science to prove the existence of God. IMO what he is saying is that existence of God is currently beyond the realm and capabilities of Science. Remember Science is always evolving. You could not expect to prove the existence of Atoms in the year 650B.C. does not mean eventually science could not evolve to prove such thing.

You're conflating two completely different arguments. The scientific process hasn't evolved much at all. You *always* start from a testable, falsifiable theory. What you're saying that's evolving is technology. For example, only recently (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/) we were able to test some of Eistein's theory of relativity claims. But in order to actually test a theory, you need to explain what you should see when you observe the phenomena. In other words, make it falsifiable.

There's no such thing with a deity. Anything non-empirical is just one giant wild guess without any ability to test it.

[Chinook]

It would be if someone wanted to use today's science to prove the existence of God. IMO what he is saying is that existence of God is currently beyond the realm and capabilities of Science. Remember Science is always evolving. You could not expect to prove the existence of Atoms in the year 650B.C. does not mean eventually science could not evolve to prove such thing.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but Nono's right. I AM saying that science can NEVER disprove the existence of god. I mean, I guess god could just show himself one day and put an end to all this like he did in that one South Park episode. But my point is that science deals with causes, not reasons. Finding out everything about how the universe works doesn't mean that it doesn't work that way for a reason. The universe could just be one huge computer program that we live in, and us figuring out the code to it doesn't allow us to dismiss the idea that someone wrote the code.

More functionally, I was addressing the general idea that atheists hold that the belief in god is innately irrational; it's not. What makes it look that way is the constraint the notion of god has due to all the extensions that people add on. God doesn't have to be some invisible man in the sky. He doesn't have to be good or love us. He doesn't have to come save us if where in trouble, or tell us how to live our lives. We dismiss the idea of god because what ignorant (not in a bad way) people attributed to him no longer jives with the way we understand the world to work now.

In my personal belief, our lives are predetermined due to the causal closure of the physical, which is a theory most atheists should hold. We are machines running on our paths. I don't necessarily think there's a reason to this, but I don't think there's an intelligence to it. I think we should try to understand what that intelligence is, which is why I love science and pursued it in college.

[Chinook]

You're conflating two completely different arguments. The scientific process hasn't evolved much at all. You *always* start from a testable, falsifiable theory. What you're saying that's evolving is technology. For example, only recently (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/) we were able to test some of Eistein's theory of relativity claims. But in order to actually test a theory, you need to explain what you should see when you observe the phenomena. In other words, make it falsifiable.

There's no such thing with a deity. Anything non-empirical is just one giant wild guess without any ability to test it.

Agree with your analysis of science just fine. But just as it's irresponsible to say that there is a god because you can't disprove it, so too is it irresponsible to say that there isn't a god because you can't prove it. For all we know, god is sitting out in space like he is in Futurama waiting for someone to bump into him. Neither of us believe it, but I think the logical thing to do is not to dismiss it.

[cesare borgia]

Since you like to quote scriptures:

Galatians 6:2


2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.




The law of Christ is different from the Jewish laws.

God's law(Torah) is not Jewish law, but the Talmud is. The Messiah came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil the law. We are under the Spirit of the law, which is more restrictive than the letter of the law. Under the letter of the law you can take the gay,witch and sins which require the death penalty outside the city, and stone him to death.

[hater]

You're conflating two completely different arguments. The scientific process hasn't evolved much at all. You *always* start from a testable, falsifiable theory. What you're saying that's evolving is technology. For example, only recently (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/) we were able to test some of Eistein's theory of relativity claims. But in order to actually test a theory, you need to explain what you should see when you observe the phenomena. In other words, make it falsifiable.

There's no such thing with a deity. Anything non-empirical is just one giant wild guess without any ability to test it.

right now. As science was unable to test existece of Atoms in 650B.C.

Who knows in 500 years science might be able to prove souls and an ultimate soul exists?

[hater]

I AM saying that science can NEVER disprove the existence of god.

well science can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus of the Easter Bunny either for example. Or that I have a pair of invisible hands. Science is just a little peek hole that humans use to discern the universe.

[ElNono]

See, this why is you don't understand what I'm saying. Metaphysics isn't something a person chooses to believe. It's a realm of questions that exist in the intellectual universe. The question, "Is there a reason for all this?" Is something you can say yes to, no to, or IDGAF to, but it's not something you can believe or not belief in. Metaphysics have no place in science because science doesn't strive to answer those questions. Science is based on empiricism, not rationalism. That doesn't make science superior; it just makes them different.

Completely disagree. Metaphysics is entirely a mental construction that a person chooses to believe in or not, much like theism, religion, god, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.

A perfectly normal answer to that question is "I don't know", and it's a perfectly logical and valid answer. When you start attributing the unknown to something else you're doing it on your own volition.


It doesn't matter that both sociology and chemistry are sciences. If theism were a science, then there'd be no need for an analogy in the first place. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't use incompatible disciplines to define each other. Sociology isn't pointless just because it can't explain chemistry. In the same way, metaphysics isn't pointless just because it doesn't explain science.

You would need to establish that metaphysics is a 'discipline' (a field of study) in the first place, and not a bunch of made up stuff. The reason is not a science is because it isn't serious. There's no bar like the one set by the scientific process. Anybody can smoke a joint and be a meta-physicist.


Theism isn't a theory; it's a belief. It goes beyond science. In that same way, atheism also goes beyond science. Neither one affects the workability of scientific theories. When was the last time a belief in god (not belief in a religion) got in the way of science?

Galileo? Intelligent design? And ofcourse it affects the workability of scientific theories: it's inherently incompatible. As I said before, if we take as a premise that everything unknown is the product of some metaphysical effect, there's no longer an incentive to do any further research.


Name a single "why" that was ascertained empirically. Don't list a how, like explaining that gravity is why the Earth moves around the sun. A genuine motive/reason that explains some natural process.

We don't know yet. That's the answer. And it's a perfectly fine answer as to why. Now if you have a testable, verifiable theory of why, present it, and science will be happy to take a look at it.

There's no requirement to attribute what we don't know to anything. People that do, do it entirely on what they choose to guess it is.


Yeah, once again, this retort stems from you misunderstanding what metaphysics is. It's not mysticism or supernaturalism, like you seem to think. I showed why religion doesn't have to be based in theism, and why theism doesn't have to entail religion. That DOES entirely address the idea that they are both based in the same premise; they're not.

I'd like to know what you think metaphysics is. Not even the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/) apparently really knows.


The whole point of my argument is that taking the strong view that god doesn't exists is neither necessary nor helpful when pursuing science. You can explain how the universe works in its entirety without even addressing the notion of god. Science doesn't answer why, because why isn't determined through empiricism. It's determined (albeit by no means definitively or even accurately) through rationalism. Both science and metaphysics guide humans. In fact, metaphysics guides science in the first place.

Completely disagree here too. Science doesn't answer 'why' simply because nobody has come up with a theory that fits the scientific process and makes sense. Science can perfectly address that question when such an empirical theory is proposed.

Also completely disagree to put science and metaphysics at the same level. Science actually provide solid building blocks for the evolution of society (technology is a contemporary prime example of that). Metaphysics is basically a mental jerk off.

And no, what drives science is the discovery of the unknown. Not the direct attribution of the unknown to some imaginary entity.

[ElNono]

Agree with your analysis of science just fine. But just as it's irresponsible to say that there is a god because you can't disprove it, so too is it irresponsible to say that there isn't a god because you can't prove it. For all we know, god is sitting out in space like he is in Futurama waiting for someone to bump into him. Neither of us believe it, but I think the logical thing to do is not to dismiss it.

Asking to prove a negative is a logical fallacy (the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). I keep telling you this, but I get the impression you don't understand what that means.

[ElNono]

right now. As science was unable to test existece of Atoms in 650B.C.

Who knows in 500 years science might be able to prove souls and an ultimate soul exists?

Where's the Soul theory that proposes a testable, falsifiable claim?

A 'Soul' isn't even a theory, much less a testable theory (unlike atoms). It's simply imagination construct attributing the unknown to 'something'.

If somebody came up with a testable 'soul' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'soul', but what it really is.

[Chinook]

well science can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus of the Easter Bunny either for example. Or that I have a pair of invisible hands. Science is just a little peek hole that humans use to discern the universe.

Yes, and you can't (and shouldn't) try to assert that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist (or never existed, to be more accurate) as a 100-percent definitive view. It's functionally definitive, though.

There are logical defenses (meaning defenses through logic, not iron-clad defenses) of the existence of god that I touched on upthread. But I'm getting exhausted, and I've been putting off studying for my finals for far too long.

So I say we should call a armistice, ElNono . I am not trying to infringe on your beliefs, and I hope I didn't come off that way. I was aiming to define the debate more accurately so that people wouldn't just keep shouting back and forth at each other. It didn't really work out, but whatever. We agree functionally, and we can agree to disagree on the rest.

If you want to discuss any of this further, I'm game in about a week or so. But I have about eight hours of transcribing to do. Those multi-quote messages will be the death of me, I swear.

[hater]

Where's the Soul theory that proposes a testable, falsifiable claim?

where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??



A 'Soul' isn't even a theory, much less a testable theory (unlike atoms). It's simply imagination construct attributing the unknown to 'something'.

If somebody came up with a testable 'soul' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'soul', but what it really is.

Nono in 650B.C.: "if someone came up with a testable 'atom' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'atom' but what it really is.

[ElNono]

So I say we should call a armistice, ElNono

I'm good. We disagree and that's fine by me. :tu

[hater]

Yes, and you can't (and shouldn't) try to assert that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't exist (or never existed, to be more accurate) as a 100-percent definitive view. It's functionally definitive, though.

and not even Science should be taken as a 100 percent definitive view. It is probably the closest to reality we can get but IMO still not 'it'

[ElNono]

where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??

In the Western tradition, the existence of atoms was first proposed by Greek philosophers such as Democritus, Leucippus, and the Epicureans. The atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental parts: indivisible atoms and empty void. Atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world.

Looks like a testable, falsifiable theory to me. Turns out that they were wrong too, we now know atoms are not indestructible.


Nono in 650B.C.: "if someone came up with a testable 'atom' theory, then sure. It probably wouldn't be called 'atom' but what it really is.

hater in 2013A.D.: "where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??"

[Chinook]

I'm good. We disagree and that's fine by me. :tu

Good. We both believe in science and all that. I don't think debating our disagreements is destructive, either. It's just gets exhausting in text and what not. I should have learned my lesson after trying to debate my friends through text messages.

[hater]

In the Western tradition, the existence of atoms was first proposed by Greek philosophers such as Democritus, Leucippus, and the Epicureans. The atomists theorized that the natural world consists of two fundamental parts: indivisible atoms and empty void. Atoms are indestructible and immutable and there are an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. They move through the void, bouncing off each other, sometimes becoming hooked with one or more others to form a cluster. Clusters of different shapes, arrangements, and positions give rise to the various macroscopic substances in the world.

Looks like a testable, falsifiable theory to me. Turns out that they were wrong too, we now know atoms are not indestructible.



hater in 2013A.D.: "where was the atomic theory in 650 B.C.??"

there was a reason why I picked year 650B.C. Those theories came much later.

Still, how is that theory testable in 650B.C.? (or 300-B.C. for that matter?)

[ElNono]

there was a reason why I picked year 650B.C. Those theories came much later.

Still, how is that theory testable in 650B.C.? (or 300-B.C. for that matter?)

I think you're confusing what 'testable' means. It doesn't mean that it needs to be tested right at that moment.

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive.

In other words, the 'data' that eventually proves or disproves the theory can come much later. What makes a theory testable are the claims of what that data will look like.

[Woo Bum-kon]

But but... you keep posting Old Testament laws and one of them says "Thou shalt not kill".

And multiple other commandments (there's a lot of them) tell us to kill, so...

[hater]

I think you're confusing what 'testable' means. It doesn't mean that it needs to be tested right at that moment.

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive.

In other words, the 'data' that eventually proves or disproves the theory can come much later. What makes a theory testable are the claims of what that data will look like.

not arguing that at all.

not even arguing that there currently is no valid God theory. Although not agreeing either.

I'm saying sometime in the future there might be a valid god theory and even later in the future it might be proven. To say there is no possibility of that would be equivalent to saying the same about Atoms in 650B.C.

[ElNono]

not even arguing that there currently is no valid God theory. Although not agreeing either.

I'm saying sometime in the future there might be a valid god theory and even later in the future it might be proven. To say there is no possibility of that would be equivalent to saying the same about Atoms in 650B.C.

The current 'god' construct would need to change radically to an empirical form. Atoms never had that problem.

[Killakobe81]

it's hard to believe a thread on buttfucking could create such a discussion.

:lol

Crazy how Collins got us here talking on a range of social topics most of it having nothing to do with how many poles he smoked ...

I was raised in a faith based home, and still go though I struggle with my own faith t times ...
One thing my homophobic uncle brought up to my Deacon grandfather (his pops) was where were the dinosaurs in the Bible?
I know it's a simple argument and one that you can easily dismiss with faith ... but when I was going through a questioning the world phase as a freshman in college ...
I like my late uncle wondered how did man and dinos co-exist?

I moved past that and look at the OT as kind of a frame-work ... but I do get why some question it ...because I did so myself at one time.

[hater]

The current 'god' construct would need to change radically to an empirical form. Atoms never had that problem.

what is "the current 'god' construct" you are referring to?

[Technique]

Jesus christ can somebody move this thread to the Club. So much pointless banter.

Nobody gives a fuck I can promise you this.

[ElNono]

what is "the current 'god' construct" you are referring to?

the metaphysical one... creator of all, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.

[Woo Bum-kon]

We're born agnostic.

No, we are all born atheist. Nobody is born with the belief in a god. Period. That idea has to be planted in our heads.


Atheism is the strong view that god doesn't exist.

That's not what atheism is.


Taking a strong view without proof means you take it on faith.

Wrong. The lack of evidence is evidence in itself.


If this whole time you were calling for agnosticism, then I could sympathize.

Agnosticism is based on knowledge. Atheism is based on belief. One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Like so many other people today, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Killakobe81]

Jesus christ can somebody move this thread to the Club. So much pointless banter.

Nobody gives a fuck I can promise you this.

LOL all the posts say otherwise ...
You could just avoid this thread, no offense.
I never get that you dont like something you ignore it or argue why it has no validity ...
Requesting it moved or shutdown makes no sense when it's been the most active thread down here in weeks ...

And is better than the Rapist vs. TOSB debates here lately ...

[Blake]

Atheists like to obscure the definition of their view to make it seem more reasonable. There are two strong views, theism and atheism, and then there's a sea of agnosticism and apathy. It'd be like if I tried to pretend like being a theist could mean that I just don't want to say for sure that a god DOESN'T exist. It would seem like a bad cop out. That's how I feel when atheists try to pull that stunt.

stunt?

I'd maintain that in a vacuum, it's possible to go through life without ever contemplating a higher power if you are never told to think about it, wherein no amount of faith is exercised in either direction.

Label that how you want to.

[hater]

the metaphysical one... creator of all, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.

not necessarily. As the Theory of Many Worlds is being worked on with help of quantum mechanics today. Who knows what future tools there will be to tackle those subjects you mention.

[Blake]

Jesus was not alive as a being on earth during the OT. Present evidence otherwise or go bother Koolaid Man.


Please show me any scriptural evidence to the contrary.

This isn't a difficult google and it's the last time I do homework for you. After this, you're on your own.


"John 10

30 I [Jesus] and my Father are one."

King James Version (KJV)"

therefore, Jesus = God



Genesis 3

8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

therefore Jesus was walking in the garden.

therefore Jesus was on Earth in the Old Testament

therefore God=Jesus means Jesus wrote the laws in Leviticus

coin flip chance this still goes over your head.

[ElNono]

not necessarily. As the Theory of Many Worlds is being worked on with help of quantum mechanics today. Who knows what future tools there will be to tackle those subjects you mention.

Hey, I'm in the camp that "we don't know yet". I hold no faith that we will or not ever find out about any of that stuff. I have no problem with either outcome.

EDIT: What you need to understand though is that whatever answers you're going to get are based on empirical propositions. The theory of many worlds that you mention is empirical *only* because it's based on quantum mechanics, which is also an empirical theory.

[Venti Quattro]

The Bible, as a reading, encourages slavery.

[Blake]

Like so many other people today, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm going for a jog. When I come back you'd better prove that we're born atheists.

[DPG21920]

Which is everything that's wrong with this country, both from the Republican and liberal perspective. My views on the right wing bible belt are obvious so there's no need to go further on det one, but I'm sick of liberal politicians whoring gay marriage to pander to liberals when their economic and foreign policy views suck.

I bring up gay marriage when it comes to religion, but politics wise, it's pretty obvious that gay marriage being universally legal is inevitable in this country, so supporting the legalization of gay marriage shouldn't be enough reason to send someone to congress, or in Obama's case the white house. He's a major example of a liberal politician who uses social issues to get liberal votes in spite of the fact he's a corporate and zionist shill.

Agreed, but that is an entirely different issue.

[Blake]

What? Some of the greatest minds of all time and currently today are religious.

Why are you moving the goal posts on what I said?

Unless you consider Broussard to be one of the greatest minds of all time........but even then......

[Venti Quattro]

I'm going for a jog. When I come back you'd better prove that we're born atheists.

Isn't this pretty simple? You're born without religion that's why you are baptized into a religion

[jag]

This isn't a difficult google and it's the last time I do homework for you. After this, you're on your own.



therefore, Jesus = God



therefore Jesus was walking in the garden.

therefore Jesus was on Earth in the Old Testament

therefore God=Jesus means Jesus wrote the laws in Leviticus

coin flip chance this still goes over your head.

You really aren't very bright. It's entertaining watching you dance around a very simple concept.

Did Jesus Christ exist in human form on earth before his birth, which was accounted for in Matthew? Think about that for a second.

You created an argument out of nowhere and it's a silly one. You thinking you're enlightening anyone by linking two members of the Trinity is comical.

[Blake]

You really aren't very bright. It's entertaining watching you dance around a very simple concept.

Did Jesus Christ exist in human form on earth before his birth, which was accounted for in Matthew? Think about that for a second.

You created an argument out of nowhere and it's a silly one. You thinking you're enlightening anyone by linking two members of the Trinity is comical.

Ok, no he didn't exist in human form.

What exactly does that prove to you?

What argument did I make that you're referring to?

Did post-human Jesus tell you what to tell me during your jog?

[Blake]

Isn't this pretty simple? You're born without religion that's why you are baptized into a religion

Damn youre good.

[jag]

Ok, no he didn't exist in human form.



Yeah, I know.

[Blake]

Yeah, I know.

neat

[HI-FI]

:lol

Crazy how Collins got us here talking on a range of social topics most of it having nothing to do with how many poles he smoked ...

I was raised in a faith based home, and still go though I struggle with my own faith t times ...
One thing my homophobic uncle brought up to my Deacon grandfather (his pops) was where were the dinosaurs in the Bible?
I know it's a simple argument and one that you can easily dismiss with faith ... but when I was going through a questioning the world phase as a freshman in college ...
I like my late uncle wondered how did man and dinos co-exist?

I moved past that and look at the OT as kind of a frame-work ... but I do get why some question it ...because I did so myself at one time.

yeah, the whole God thing can be confusing. My family sort of went to church, they certainly never shoved anything down my throat. shit, I don't even know if they were Christian, they might have been. I had a friend at a young age try to save me, not sure if I was or not. like I said, it's a source of much confusion for me, but I don't begrudge anyone who has peace or joy in God. tbh, i'm sort of jealous of it. It's a crazy world out there, our monkey brains will never grasp everything. I have my own ideas on this stuff, but I tend to keep that private.

as for the buttfucking, it's an interesting topic, because it serves no reproductive purpose. yet maybe it's genetic, maybe it's not. it's certainly a dirty way of fucking, hence why disease is spread so easily via anal sex. my ladies in the past rarely wanted any of it from me, didn't want no ripping and tearing as my nigga Fevertrees would say.

[Blake]

I don't begrudge anyone who has peace or joy in God. tbh, i'm sort of jealous of it.

pretty much

[Thebesteva]

I just love how everyone destroyed Tim Tebow for being super Christian, but this guy comes out and says he's gay and everyone is supporting him and calling him a hero.

[TDMVPDPOY]

b4 god created or perfected making humans, he made adam and steve

then he made adam and eve
their offspring was cain and abel and we all know why one killed the other...

in the bible didnt mention jesus or any of the 12 henchmen havin family, so 13 guys walking around sleeping together, someshit must be up...

[Jacob1983]

Explain this to me. If a person wants Jason Collins to shut up about his gayness, that person is a bigot. If a person wants Tim Tebow to shut up about his faith in Christianity, that person is cool and right and that type of behavior is accepted and encouraged. Double standard anyone?

And I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and open minded and promoters of equality and tolerance?

[AaronY]

Poor, persecuted Tebow..

[Spurs da champs]

Explain this to me. If a person wants Jason Collins to shut up about his gayness, that person is a bigot. If a person wants Tim Tebow to shut up about his faith in Christianity, that person is cool and right and that type of behavior is accepted and encouraged. Double standard anyone?

And I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and open minded and promoters of equality and tolerance?

Jason Collins simply came out, I don't see how he's shoving his sexual orientation down anyone's throat? Him being the first openly gay "active" player in a major sport is why this has gotten so much attention. & last time I checked no one is bashing Tebow for his religion, what you described of Collins is really what perfectly describes Tebow in regards to his faith.

But we should not forget the centuries of persecution Christians have faced in this country as the overwhelming majority, they have always been the victims. :rolleyes

[Blake]

Explain this to me. If a person wants Jason Collins to shut up about his gayness, that person is a bigot. If a person wants Tim Tebow to shut up about his faith in Christianity, that person is cool and right and that type of behavior is accepted and encouraged. Double standard anyone?

And I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and open minded and promoters of equality and tolerance?

let me know when Collins starts preaching about how everyone needs to have gay in their lives.

Until then, you should shut up bigot.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Explain this to me. If a person wants Jason Collins to shut up about his gayness, that person is a bigot. If a person wants Tim Tebow to shut up about his faith in Christianity, that person is cool and right and that type of behavior is accepted and encouraged. Double standard anyone?

And I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and open minded and promoters of equality and tolerance?
Exhibit i-dont-know-what for why jeebotards are dumb

[Trill Clinton]

I just love how everyone destroyed Tim Tebow for being super Christian, but this guy comes out and says he's gay and everyone is supporting him and calling him a hero.


modern day babylon.

http://i43.tinypic.com/34oc47o.jpg

[Monster1776]

I just love how everyone destroyed Tim Tebow for being super Christian, but this guy comes out and says he's gay and everyone is supporting him and calling him a hero.

It's because most people missed out on being that "rebellious cool kid" growing up; so they try to make up on lost time by hating religion.

[Blake]

modern day babylon.

http://i43.tinypic.com/34oc47o.jpg

Do they make eye black for gays, or does it only come in attention whoring John 3:16?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Tebow/Collins comparisons are hilarious tbh

[Clipper Nation]

It's because most people missed out on being that "rebellious cool kid" growing up; so they try to make up on lost time by hating religion.
Or maybe it's just that many people choose not to be religious and think Jeebotards' arguments are dumb :lol

[Clipper Nation]

modern day babylon.

http://i43.tinypic.com/34oc47o.jpg
False equivalence... Christianity is seen as normal, so no one cares, and Tebow brought the hate on himself for being a publicity whore and running his own 15 minutes into the ground.... meanwhile, tons of people still don't see homosexuality as normal, and Collins had been hiding it for years, not parading it around at every opportunity like Tebow does with his faith, tbh...

[Banzai]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/20/Whatwhat3.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=4043)
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/406501/lebron-gay-o.gif (http://gifsoup.com/view/406501/lebron-gay.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com)

[AaronY]

I honestly fail to see the difference between a man who keeps his views to himself for 35 years and then writes one article about them in SI with a guy who mentions them three times a sentence and turns his face into a billboard for them. They're really the same person when you think about it..

[FkLA]

What? Some of the greatest minds of all time and currently today are religious.

Honestly how many claim being religious because its politically correct? Maybe Im wrong, but we hear all this stuff about politicians and other high profile people being involved in scandalous stuff (affairs, prostitution rings, pedophilia, etc)...Im sure theres stuff we never find out about as well. It makes it hard to believe that most of them are truly religious men, has more to do with them wanting to appeal to the masses imo.

[cesare borgia]

modern day babylon.

http://i43.tinypic.com/34oc47o.jpg

More like a atheist socialist/communism take over to be honest.

[Blake]

Lol communism takeover

[cesare borgia]

I just love how everyone destroyed Tim Tebow for being super Christian, but this guy comes out and says he's gay and everyone is supporting him and calling him a hero.

That just one of the symptom's of a atheist scocialist/communist take over behind the scenes.

[dfens]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195406 TBH this thread was the shit

[AaronY]

Bro, I would check the expiry date on that communist boogeyman..should read December 91

[Xevious]

I realize I'm 24 pages late to the thread... but who gives a shit? Collins is a basketball player and I could not care less about what god he prays to, who he votes for, or who he fucks as long as they are a consenting adult. He got exactly what he wanted by coming out, people are talking about him. I'm not advocating don't ask, don't tell... but why is this news?

[cesare borgia]

Lol communism takeover

Read the "Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals" that Congress read into the Congressional record around 1965. You can't tell me, many of these goals has come to fruition.

[Blake]

Read the "Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals" that Congress read into the Congressional record around 1965. You can't tell me, many of these goals has come to fruition.

Whatever you say kook.

[SupremeGuy]

It's disgusting that people are still so bigoted. Polyamorphism, incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and etc are waiting for acceptance too. Everything I've just named has existed as long as faggot sex, so fuck the liberals and their bigotry. Funny story, faggot muhammad's "favorite wife" was a fucking 6 year old ****.

[Blake]

Because gays and pedophiles are the same!

[Jeff Van Gundy]

It's disgusting that people are still so bigoted. Polyamorphism, incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and etc are waiting for acceptance too. Everything I've just named has existed as long as faggot sex, so fuck the liberals and their bigotry. Funny story, faggot muhammad's "favorite wife" was a fucking 6 year old ****.

:lmao justice scalia 2.0
What a moron trying to compare bestiality to gay marriage. Let me guess, you are one of those retards that believe that gay people having sex is the same thing as necrophilia. Gtfo here

[SupremeGuy]

:lmao justice scalia 2.0
What a moron trying to compare bestiality to gay marriage. Let me guess, you are one of those retards that believe that gay people having sex is the same thing as necrophilia. Gtfo hereYour bigotry is disgusting. If the media narrative was to accept necrophilia, your dumb ass probably would too.

[Blake]

Your bigotry is disgusting. If the media narrative was to accept necrophilia, your dumb ass probably would too.

slippery slope is extra slippery

[fevertrees]

This cocksucker got exactly what he wanted and is now going to be on Oprah. Shames me as a gay man for someone like this to exploit his sexuality for unwarranted attention. We have come to far to get "free publicity" for something that we shouldn't have to hide in the first place. You don't see me or any of my gay menz running around and making sure people know we are homosexual. Give us a break Collins and you are going to burn in Hell for this stunt.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/jason-collins-family-visit-oprah-depth-sunday-interview-185002019.html

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao communist boogeyman

[hater]

This cocksucker got exactly what he wanted and is now going to be on Oprah. Shames me as a gay man for someone like this to exploit his sexuality for unwarranted attention. We have come to far to get "free publicity" for something that we shouldn't have to hide in the first place. You don't see me or any of my gay menz running around and making sure people know we are homosexual. Give us a break Collins and you are going to burn in Hell for this stunt.


don't blame the man. Blame the US of A. It's the retarded middle class making a huge deal out of this. This country was designed so it's majority middle class stays as dumb as rocks and as evolved as a European of the 1920s. :lmao

[fevertrees]

Collins is a reason why so many Americans are homophobic and can't accept it. He demands attention for his sexuality which obviously pisses off the majority of the South and Bible Belt.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It really is funny when I see fear of communism/socialism. If you look at the distribution of wealth in this country and think we're headed in the direction of socialism, you're either really fuckin stupid or you don't know what socialism is (and you'd also be really stupid in that scenario for being scared of something you don't know).

[AaronY]

Lol, sig loaded with dicks..troll harder son..

[jag]

This cocksucker got exactly what he wanted and is now going to be on Oprah. Shames me as a gay man for someone like this to exploit his sexuality for unwarranted attention. We have come to far to get "free publicity" for something that we shouldn't have to hide in the first place. You don't see me or any of my gay menz running around and making sure people know we are homosexual. Give us a break Collins and you are going to burn in Hell for this stunt.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/jason-collins-family-visit-oprah-depth-sunday-interview-185002019.html

Is it me, or did shit just get really weird in here?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Is it just me, or did shit just get really weird in here?
BRfevertrees45 is just trolling in his own weird way.

[hater]

the retarded homophobia is just one examples of how backwards ass this country is.

as mentioned above the fear of socialism is another example. that comes from the brainwashing that was being done in the 1950s I mean in this country it was allowed to kill a socialist/communist, they were more evil than rapists or serial killers.

another example is the war on Marijuana. It again comes from an old feud in the 1940s or 50s against the lower income people and minorities who enjoyed this recreational drug.

This country has not evolved since the 1930s IMO

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

the retarded homophobia is just one examples of how backwards ass this country is.

as mentioned above the fear of socialism is another example. that comes from the brainwashing that was being done in the 1950s I mean in this country it was allowed to kill a socialist/communist, they were more evil than rapists or serial killers.

another example is the war on Marijuana. It again comes from an old feud in the 1940s or 50s against the lower income people and minorities who enjoyed this recreational drug.

This country has not evolved since the 1930s IMO
The best was in 2008 when right wing knuckle-draggers were running around saying shit like, "If that socialist Obama gets elected, I'm moving to Canada!"

The war on Marijuana is still around because of the prison industrial complex (a country turning its prison system into a privatized for profit industry just screams socialism :lol) pouring millions into the lobby to keep it illegal. It's amazing how this country can have such backwards marijuana laws that stick around because a few people can buy Washington off.

[hater]

and last but not least the racism here is as bad as it was in the 1950s or 60s IMO

this country is so backwards ass a black man and a white man cannot even look at each other in the street :lol

[AaronY]

Takeover is nearly complete imo

https://motherjones.com/files/images/what-they-make450_0.png

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Takeover is nearly complete imo

https://motherjones.com/files/images/what-they-make450_0.png
:lol blind liberals who think Bill Clinton was a good president when he continued what Reagan started in handing America over to corporations

[Brazil]

:lmao 24 pages on Jason Collins gayness

[fevertrees]

Still doesn't have a job for being a scrub but media already spinning it to league homophobia :lol

[Thread]

^It's a virtual gold mine of materiel for Media if he plays. If he doesn't the stream trickles and then stops altogether by October.

[Sportcamper]

Is it me, or did shit just get really weird in here?

Just saw this....:lmao

[Chief Brody]

He sucks (npi), and no team wants that kind of distraction.

[Thread]

He sucks (npi), and no team wants that kind of distraction.

Aside from the missed layups and petty cash outlays for [Tucks] it hasn't hurt the Spurs.

[fevertrees]

wtf did the LGBT write this article? :lol

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/three-months-coming-closet-jason-collins-still-without-181353522.html

When Jason Collins came out of the closet in a Sports Illustrated column during last spring’s playoffs, the veteran center had a good five months before 2013-14 NBA training camps began to find his next team. Collins is an active NBA player, the first openly gay player in the four major North American professional sports to come out, and he was adamant that his career would not be ending with that scene-shifting announcement.

Three months into that journey, though, Collins is still without a team – and this is either typical of someone of Collins’ stature as a role player on the end of the bench, a sign of the NBA’s league-wide fiscal belt tightening, or a worrying note for those that hoped that an openly gay athlete could sign with a pro team with relatively little hoopla to follow. Wednesday marked the one-year anniversary of Collins’ 2012 free agent signing with the Boston Celtics, and every day that follows will unfortunately force us NBA observers to ask a question that we want nothing to do with: Are NBA teams passing on signing Jason Collins the basketball player, or Jason Collins the openly gay athlete?

Collins, one of the headier NBA players in recent memory, is more than ready for both sides of this particular string out. There are the players that you sign as soon as free agency hits in early July, there are the second tiered guys that you sign after that, and then there are the players like Jason Collins that usually have to pick up the scraps following that second or even tertiary rush.

Then there is the groundbreaking part where an openly gay NBA player with openly rock solid NBA credentials attempts to find NBA employment on the open market.

In July, a week into the free agent courting period, Collins discussed as much with the New York Times’ Howard Beck:

“I look at it, honestly, like any other free agency in the past several years, where I know I have to stay patient,” said the 34-year-old Collins, who played in only 38 games last season, averaging 10 minutes a game as a defensive-minded center for Boston and later Washington. “And I know that at this point in my career, you remain hopeful that there’s a job and an opportunity waiting for you once teams start to fill out their rosters.”

As we mentioned above, the Boston Celtics signed Collins to a free agent deal around this time last summer. Prior to that season, the Atlanta Hawks signed him just a few days after the free agency period opened up following the 2011 lockout, but in 2010 Jason had to wait until early September to find a deal with a Hawks team that badly needed his services in defending division rival Dwight Howard, and his Orlando Magic.

That was three years ago, an NBA eternity for a player that hasn’t played more than a thousand minutes in a season since 2007-08, and one that was traded against the wishes of the Boston Celtics’ best player last year mainly because the Celtics just wanted to take a chance on a limited chucker in Jordan Crawford.

Boston’s best player last February, Kevin Garnett, is now a member of the Brooklyn Nets. It's the franchise that employed Collins from 2001-08, and now features a coach in Jason Kidd that made it to the NBA Finals as a player with Collins in the pivot in 2002 and 2003. That team would seem to be the perfect fit for someone like Collins, as a spot player to perhaps battle Roy Hibbert or Joakim Noah off the bench in the playoffs, but the recent signing of swingman Alan Anderson rounded off the team’s roster at 15 spots. And on top of that, Anderson’s relatively modest starting salary of under $1 million a year will cost the Nets over $4 million in luxury tax penalties.

The financial aspect of any end of the bench signing cannot be overlooked in the post-lockout era. Not every team is dealing with the same punitive tax issues that the Nets are, but with so many teams rubbing up against the luxury tax threshold, adding a player like Collins for the veteran’s minimum could cost teams both tax penalties and the revenue sharing benefits that come from working under the tax line. For quite a few teams, even a one year deal could hamstring a club’s ability to take on extra salary in a trade sometime midseason.

This is all for a player that, in a way, is becoming an anachronism in the modern NBA. The last two Miami Heat NBA Finals wins were stamped with a small ball logo, with the Oklahoma City Thunder deservedly earning much scorn for playing a Collins-type like Kendrick Perkins heavy minutes in 2012, and the San Antonio Spurs going away from much-admired pivotman Tiago Splitter in mid-June after months of success with their twin towers lineup. For entirety of his NBA career, Collins’ best attribute has been his ability to work as no-stats All-Star – he doesn’t rebound, he rarely scores, and he doesn’t block shots. All he does is expertly defend the sorts of dominant low post beasts that rarely trod this realm in 2013.

Collins played just 38 games in 2012-13 (Getty Images)There aren’t many of those guys left. Dwight Howard is one, but at worst a division rival will play him four times a year during the regular season. Andrew Bynum may actually play for the Cleveland Cavaliers in 2013-14, but it’s doubtful that this Cavs squad will make the playoffs. And the rest of the league’s best centers (Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Joakim Noah, Tyson Chandler, Andrew Bogut, Andre Drummond) are more respected for their defensive acumen, and less feared for their back to the basket moves.

Given this context, Collins’ lack of employment would seem more akin to someone like Charles Jones’ inability to get a new gig in the late 1990s than anything. Save for the part about Collins being on the cover of Sports Illustrated, with an announcement that drove more traffic to Sports Illustrated’s website than the Swimsuit Issue’s unveiling. Jones didn’t really make that sort of mark on the national radar.

This is why any team that wants to sign Jason Collins for basketball reasons – and we’re of the opinion that just about every NBA team should take a shot at Jason Collins for basketball reasons – might want to get the transaction out of the way now. In the heart of the NBA’s downtime, with attention focused on baseball’s stretch run, and NFL training camps.

And that’s giving the credibility of a team taking a flyer on Collins for non-basketball reasons way too much credit. That sort of move is not happening. That sort of move shouldn’t happen. I’m a cynical sort, and the NBA can be full of dolts, but no team is going to sign Jason Collins just to be That Team, and look good in the press while selling a few more jerseys along the way. Jason Collins is still “Jason Collins, the guy that can move his feet and defend centers” more than he is “Jason Collins, the openly gay professional athlete” to NBA teams.

That isn’t to say that latter part of Collins’ Wikipedia page intro won’t influence things.

Whoever decides to sign a nondescript, 34-year old backup-to-the-backup center will make sports history. They will have to go in making sure each and every member of their current roster is on point and free of bias, and they will have to be ready to treat one of the more profound moments in sporting history (seriously, my happy heart is fluttering just typing this) as no big deal. For all the positive non-basketball reasons that could come with such a signing, whatever team that decides to employ Jason Collins for about 300 on-court minutes next season will have to prepare for ten times as much off court work in dealing with media, and their own in-house concerns. Progress takes patience.

Teams should sign up for this, though. Collins can play. More importantly, Dwight Howard can play. And for teams like the Mavericks or Trail Blazers or Pelicans that are attempting to both make the playoffs and fend off Howard’s Rockets four times a year, Collins would be a perfect fit. Those organizations have open roster spots, and room under the luxury tax. And for the Mavericks and Trail Blazers, such a move would be a chance to live up to the nickname they gave themselves.

In a world where the uncaring end presents “who cares?” as its new form of homophobia, perhaps Collins’ lack of employment could be viewed as the new normal. It’s very possible that I’m being an appalling optimist in this case, but I have to look through these particular glasses as an NBA analyst first. Jason Collins was a fringe NBA roster participant in 2012-13, before his announcement and dedication brought tears to our eyes. If he doesn’t get a gig this summer, it may have less to do with backwards thinking, and more to do with basketball thinking.

In a way, that would be an advancement of sorts. Even if we have to miss out on Jason Collins flummoxing Dwight Howard’s post moves four times a year in 2013-14.

Let’s not settle for that type of advancement, though. Let’s hire a guy that can contribute to an NBA team for a modest price, and make an indelible mark along the way. It’s a win-win, guys.

[Thread]

Let’s hire a guy that can contribute to an NBA team for a modest price, and make an indelible mark along the way. It’s a win-win, guys.

He wouldn't hire him though. No fuckin' way.

[fevertrees]

BUMP

Jobless bum :lol

[Splits]

:cry


It has been 18 exhilarating months since I came out in Sports Illustrated as the first openly gay man in one of the four major professional team sports. And it has been nine months since I signed with the Nets and became the first openly gay male athlete to appear in a game in one of those leagues. It feels wonderful to have been part of these milestones for sports and for gay rights, and to have been embraced by the public, the coaches, the players, the league and history.

On Wednesday at the Barclays Center, I plan to announce my retirement as an NBA player. The day will be especially meaningful for me because the Nets will be playing the Bucks, who are coached by Jason Kidd, my former teammate and my coach in Brooklyn. It was Jason who cheered my decision to come out by posting on Twitter: “Jason’s sexuality doesn’t change the fact that he is a great friend and was a great teammate.”


Arguably the most important commissioner in American professional sports history, David Stern spent 30 years at the helm of the NBA. Under his watch, the NBA expanded tremendously, both nationally and internationally. Games are now televised in 215 countries and regular season contests are regularly played outside North America. Stern also changed the structure of the league, instituting a salary cap and revenue sharing.


Considering all the speculation about problems I might face within the locker room, Jason’s support was significant. It had been argued that no team would want to take on a player who was likely to attract a media circus from the outset and whose sexuality would be a distraction. I’m happy to have helped put those canards to rest. The much-ballyhooed media blitz to cover me unscrambled so quickly that a flack jokingly nicknamed me Mr. Irrelevant.


Among the memories I will cherish most are the warm applause I received in Los Angeles when I took the court in my Nets debut, and the standing ovation I got at my first home game in Brooklyn. It shows how far we’ve come. The most poignant moment came at my third game, in Denver, where I met the family of Matthew Shepard, a gay college student beaten to death in a 1998 hate crime on the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo. For the past two years I have worn number 98 on my jersey to honor his memory. I was humbled to learn that number 98 jerseys became the top seller at NBAStore.com. Proceeds from sales, and from auctioned jerseys I wore in games, were donated to two gay-rights charities.


There are still no publicly gay players in the NFL, NHL or major league baseball. Believe me: They exist. Every pro sport has them. I know some of them personally. When we get to the point where a gay pro athlete is no longer forced to live in fear that he’ll be shunned by teammates or outed by tabloids, when we get to the point where he plays while his significant other waits in the family room, when we get to the point where he’s not compelled to hide his true self and is able to live an authentic life, then coming out won’t be such a big deal. But we’re not there yet.

[spurraider21]

first openly gay player to retire

:cry what a hero

[AlexJones]

So how much money did he milk?

[Splits]

So how much money did he milk?

:cry it's all for the gay rights charities :cry