The Manu Doesn't Believe in God Thread

[ChumpDumper]

He was plastered across many national publications and brought negative attention to himself and his team. In the long-run, maybe nothing, but to act like no one noticed is just wrong.

So people noticed.

So what?

[DPG21920]

So people noticed.

So what?

So you think that negative publicity is no big deal? Then why do people make such a big deal about the Spurs staying out of trouble and out of the media?

[DPG21920]

So if he were a Christian he should say "I believe in Christ but that doesnt mean I'm right or you are wrong. I respect all believes"?

Yes. That is how I talk to people and I have a lot of friends that are not Christians. We discuss things like this and get along just fine. I was just commenting on the old adage "you don't discuss politics or religion over dinner" type deal. I have no beef with what he said or how he said it though. I just thought it was little odd to see such direct honesty to fans on a subject that I thought was sensitive. Sometimes that refreshing honesty gets famous people in trouble and opens the doors to more privacy invasion and judgments.

[Cherry]

Agnostics are often compared to atheist. That is not the point though, he can believe what he wants. Are you surprised that he answered such a question so honestly and directly?

No, because he answered this questions the same way before.

I have a couple of questions for you. Are you from Argentina and do you still live there if so? Do most Argentinians believe in God (are they Christians)? If so, do you think some of his fans will be upset if he does not believe?

I think the 90% believe in God (78% are Christians) but we don't go to the church so often like 20 years ago and we don't take it too seriously to the point to be upset if someone does not believe. Is not surprising.

[ChumpDumper]

So you think that negative publicity is no big deal?

Judging from Howard's salary and the Mavs' season ticket sales, I'd have to say it didn't matter one bit.

Then why do people make such a big deal about the Spurs staying out of trouble and out of the media?

It's noteworthy, but the bottom line is they are still in San Antonio because they won a couple of championships.

[lurker23]

Does anybody know if this MySpace page is legitimately made by Manu, or is it something created by a fan?

http://www.myspace.com/emanuelginobili


Just curious. It lists his religion as Catholic.

[Mister Sinister]

Maybe that is why my opinion differed so greatly from everyone's. I just think that religion is still taken very seriously (look at the presidential debate going on about Obama's religion) all over the WORLD, not just the USA like with Howard's comments. Manu is a world star so I thought it might cause some controversy.

You know, it's funny. I had a well-constructed response to your general point of view on this subject about a minute ago, and then I read through the entirety of the thread. The inane nature of your point of view, your manner of expressing it, and your seeming inability to see why people are giving you for it, are so intense, so profound in their ability to crush a person's soul, that I am glad mine is in a cold storage unit in my basement.

I realize I'm repeating the thread here, but it doesn't seem to have gotten through, so...eh. There is a world, no, a *universe* of difference between saying "I don't believe", "I'm an atheist," or "I'm an agnostiic"; and pushing that view or belief (or lack thereof) up, down, in, or around the orifice or orifices of one or multiple people. You're overreacting, and you ed your "argument", such as it was, when you Godwin'd it. Stop it, just stop it.

[DPG21920]

Judging from Howard's salary and the Mavs' season ticket sales, I'd have to say it didn't matter one bit.

It's noteworthy, but the bottom line is they are still in San Antonio because they won a couple of championships.

I was just speaking from a PR point of view. To say that just because he makes a lot of money that it does not matter is just dismissive. Maybe he offends fans, who knows? Maybe he loses an endorsement deal? I do not know. Maybe nothing happens. I just thought it was noteworthy.

[Kriz-Maxima]

Yes. That is how I talk to people and I have a lot of friends that are not Christians. We discuss things like this and get along just fine. I was just commenting on the old adage "you don't discuss politics or religion over dinner" type deal. I have no beef with what he said or how he said it though. I just thought it was little odd to see such direct honesty to fans on a subject that I thought was sensitive. Sometimes that refreshing honesty gets famous people in trouble and opens the doors to more privacy invasion and judgments.

So when someone asks you what you believe saying "I'm a christian" is somehow being disrespectful?

I saw nothing wrong with what Manu said,and most certainly nothing disrespectful. He didn't criticize people that believed different from him, he simply honestly answered a question a fan asked in his site.

[Kriz-Maxima]

I was just speaking from a PR point of view. To say that just because he makes a lot of money that it does not matter is just dismissive. Maybe he offends fans, who knows? Maybe he loses an endorsement deal? I do not know. Maybe nothing happens. I just thought it was noteworthy.

Howard is not a good example, Howard said i dont believe this "bull ". Manu did not.

[Mister Sinister]

I was just speaking from a PR point of view. To say that just because he makes a lot of money that it does not matter is just dismissive. Maybe he offends fans, who knows? Maybe he loses an endorsement deal? I do not know. Maybe nothing happens. I just thought it was noteworthy.

You know, you remind me of the babe...wait, no, wrong train of thought.

You remind me of a guy I met when I went to Eastern Illinois University for a semester. Good guy overall, but he had this *annoying* tendency to overanalyze damn near everything, so that damn near everything degenerated into philosophical debates of some nature or another. Now, at least on a face-to-face, person-to-person (or person-to-person-to-person as the case sometimes was), that gets annoying really fast. Unless it's 3 AM. But that's just us.

[DPG21920]

You know, it's funny. I had a well-constructed response to your general point of view on this subject about a minute ago, and then I read through the entirety of the thread. The inane nature of your point of view, your manner of expressing it, and your seeming inability to see why people are giving you for it, are so intense, so profound in their ability to crush a person's soul, that I am glad mine is in a cold storage unit in my basement.

I realize I'm repeating the thread here, but it doesn't seem to have gotten through, so...eh. There is a world, no, a *universe* of difference between saying "I don't believe", "I'm an atheist," or "I'm an agnostiic"; and pushing that view or belief (or lack thereof) up, down, in, or around the orifice or orifices of one or multiple people. You're overreacting, and you ed your "argument", such as it was, when you Godwin'd it. Stop it, just stop it.

It is called a discussion, if you do not like it, move along. People jumped on me because they thought I was judging, now that I clarified what I was saying it is more than reasonable. It may not be 100% correct, but it is my take on the matter. The only reason that things got so "wild" was because I was having to clarify and defend attacks against me on things I did not say.

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS. I DO NOT CARE. ALL I SAID WAS THAT I THOUGHT THE SUBJECT WAS SENSITIVE AND THAT I WAS SURPRISED HE GAVE SUCH AN HONEST ANSWER. You keep overreacting and making it into something that is about a whole other issue. Just because I had to go to an extreme to make a point about something that was not even my point of view does not mean "I lost". Sometimes people use extremes to make a point, it does not invalidate an argument (100% of the time) just because wikipedia says something.

[td4mvp21]

Fair enough. But the same can be said about Josh Howard and look at what happened there. That was the only point I was trying to make. I thought that answering such questions in this fashion could cause the same reaction (maybe not on a national level because YouTube is very popular vs Manu's forum) due to the subject matter.

See, not believing in God shouldn't be classified as controversial. It's a way to live life just like believing in God is a way to live life. Nothing controversial about it. Josh Howard's statement ( the one about smoking weed) was controversial.

[DPG21920]

So when someone asks you what you believe saying "I'm a christian" is somehow being disrespectful?

I saw nothing wrong with what Manu said,and most certainly nothing disrespectful. He didn't criticize people that believed different from him, he simply honestly answered a question a fan asked in his site.

Please show me where I said it was disrespectful. I have repeatedly said I have NO PROBLEM with what he said, his beliefs or how he said it. It was not disrespectful, rude or wrong. I SAW NOTHING WRONG with what Manu said. I just saw an opportunity that some nuts (because there is a lot of religious nuts) might use it to take shots at him. I said I was surprised he opened himself up to that.

[Mister Sinister]

It is called a discussion, if you do not like it, move along. People jumped on me because they thought I was judging, now that I clarified what I was saying it is more than reasonable. It may not be 100% correct, but it is my take on the matter. The only reason that things got so "wild" was because I was having to clarify and defend attacks against me on things I did not say.

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS. I DO NOT CARE. ALL I SAID WAS THAT I THOUGHT THE SUBJECT WAS SENSITIVE AND THAT I WAS SURPRISED HE GAVE SUCH AN HONEST ANSWER. You keep overreacting and making it into something that is about a whole other issue. Just because I had to go to an extreme to make a point about something that was not even my point of view does not mean "I lost". Sometimes people use extremes to make a point, it does not invalidate an argument (100% of the time) just because wikipedia says something.

Ok, I'm assuming you mean "you" in the plural sense, because that was my first post in the thread. I think. Whatever.
Using extremes to make a point does not *always* invalidate an argument, but using the Godwin extreme, more often than not, does, because that's a pretty damn high bar to set. Also, I *think*, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I *think* the term Godwin's Law predates Wikipedia.

[ChumpDumper]

I was just speaking from a PR point of view.

Well, why does PR ultimately exist? To make sure the company is making money.

To say that just because he makes a lot of money that it does not matter is just dismissive.

It certainly is dismissive. It's also true.

Maybe he offends fans, who knows?

That can be quantified.

Maybe he loses an endorsement deal?

Maybe, but I think he's made enough money to keep him high for the rest of his life.

I do not know. Maybe nothing happens. I just thought it was noteworthy.

If Manu's career needs a boost, he could just rape someone.

[DPG21920]

You know, you remind me of the babe...wait, no, wrong train of thought.

You remind me of a guy I met when I went to Eastern Illinois University for a semester. Good guy overall, but he had this *annoying* tendency to overanalyze damn near everything, so that damn near everything degenerated into philosophical debates of some nature or another. Now, at least on a face-to-face, person-to-person (or person-to-person-to-person as the case sometimes was), that gets annoying really fast. Unless it's 3 AM. But that's just us.

I do analyze things. But the only reason this turned into what it did was because it is such a sensitive subject (to believers and non-believers). The atheist on this board starting attacking me because they thought I meant he should believe or shut his mouth. That was not the point of what I said at all. But the reactions proved my point that religion is a tough subject to discuss and you must be careful how you say things or they can get wildly misconstrued as they did in my case.

[hitmanyr2k]

He was plastered across many national publications and brought negative attention to himself and his team. In the long-run, maybe nothing, but to act like no one noticed is just wrong.

Use common sense and ask yourself why Howard was plastered all over the news. "I don't celebrate this ...I'm black". Does that ring a bell? Ginobili's comments about his beliefs are nowhere near that inflammatory.

[Mister Sinister]

I do analyze things. But the only reason this turned into what it did was because it is such a sensitive subject (to believers and non-believers). The atheist on this board starting attacking me because they thought I meant he should believe or shut his mouth. That was not the point of what I said at all. But the reactions proved my point that religion is a tough subject to discuss and you must be careful how you say things or they can get wildly misconstrued as they did in my case.

Something being a sensitive subject by nature, doesn't mean that every comment about it will get the same level of reaction, positive or negative. I would say that I disagree with your argument that the thread is what it is because of the nature of the subject. At least, not entirely.

[DPG21920]

See, not believing in God shouldn't be classified as controversial. It's a way to live life just like believing in God is a way to live life. Nothing controversial about it. Josh Howard's statement ( the one about smoking weed) was controversial.

You are 100% correct. It should not be classified as controversial. But religion in general is. Even amongst believers. The "believers" argue with each other (all of the different divisions of Christianity) and with other faiths. Talking about religion is taboo though to a certain degree which is why I was so surprised. The questions went from "whats your favorite color" to "I do not believe in God". Maybe I am over stating how "taboo" it is, but that is all I was saying.

[timvp]

Dogg Pound Gangsta, would you rather Manu be in a Satanic cult and have avoided the question or be atheist and answer the question as he did? Pick one.

Thanks.

[DPG21920]

Use common sense and ask yourself why Howard was plastered all over the news. "I don't celebrate this ...I'm black". Does that ring a bell? Ginobili's comments about his beliefs are nowhere near that inflammatory.

I am using common sense. It is called using parallels. Josh Howard is a famous person, so is Manu. They both play in the NBA. They both discussed sensitive subjects on public forums. They both opened themselves up. Just because one may be "worse" than the other does not mean they have nothing in common.

[Mister Sinister]

Dogg Pound Gangsta, would you rather Manu be in a Satanic cult and have avoided the question or be atheist and answer the question as he did? Pick one.

Thanks.

You almost owed me a new soda. Almost.

[Kriz-Maxima]

Please show me where I said it was disrespectful. I have repeatedly said I have NO PROBLEM with what he said, his beliefs or how he said it. It was not disrespectful, rude or wrong. I SAW NOTHING WRONG with what Manu said. I just saw an opportunity that some nuts (because there is a lot of religious nuts) might use it to take shots at him. I said I was surprised he opened himself up to that.

Then why should he follow his " I'm not a believer" with " that doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong. I respect all religions"?

[Mister Sinister]

I am using common sense. It is called using parallels. Josh Howard is a famous person, so is Manu. They both play in the NBA. They both discussed sensitive subjects on public forums. They both opened themselves up. Just because one may be "worse" than the other does not mean they have nothing in common.

No, but you're kind of stretching the importance of the parallels in this particular instance. Howard's comments, and the way in which they were stated, are far more inflammatory and likely to cause outrage than the way in which Manu stated his.