What is Tim Duncan's religion?

[Fernando TD21]

In a ideal world, religion wouldn't be necessary and knowledge would be enough to guide people in their lives. But the world is not ideal and a lot of people needs religion.

It's obvious that religion has some bad aspects related to it. But if you're going to be logical and not just a "religion hater" you need to acknowledge the positive side of it then compare to the negative side in order to see which side outweighs the other.

Also if you want to keep things logic, don't assume that every religion is the same. And don't act like the mistakes made by a few members of a religion implies that the whole religion is crap.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In a ideal world, religion wouldn't be necessary and knowledge would be enough to guide people in their lives. But the world is not ideal and a lot of people needs religion.

It's obvious that religion has some bad aspects related to it. But if you're going to be logical and not just a "religion hater" you need to acknowledge the positive side of it then compare to the negative side in order to see which side outweighs the other.

Also if you want to keep things logic, don't assume that every religion is the same. And don't act like the mistakes made by a few members of a religion implies that the whole religion is crap.

This would make sense to an extent i suppose if there was only one religion. Unfortunately there are 5 major world religions and hundreds of offshoots. Adding to that is most are exclusionary. Most monotheistic religions are.

What that means is that internally within a group the social control works however when the communities interact you have dogmatic division that is irreconcilable without ignoring major tenants. Christian vs Islam, Islam vs Hindu, Hindu vs Buddhist, Judaism vs all the above. thats before you consider sectarian violence.

I think the social control aspect of religion is vastly overrated when you take the bad and the good.

[Fernando TD21]

This would make sense to an extent i suppose if there was only one religion. Unfortunately there are 5 major world religions and hundreds of offshoots. Adding to that is most are exclusionary. Most monotheistic religions are.

What that means is that internally within a group the social control works however when the communities interact you have dogmatic division that is irreconcilable without ignoring major tenants. Christian vs Islam, Islam vs Hindu, Hindu vs Buddhist, Judaism vs all the above. thats before you consider sectarian violence.

I think the social control aspect of religion is vastly overrated when you take the bad and the good.

I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

[pgardn]

The thing that strikes me about this discussion is how lacking in any moral content it is.

No one suggests that it would be a morally better place (the Universe) if the Judeo-Christian God exists.

No one on the deniers' side mentions the suffering of innocents or the other time-honored moral-philosphical points to be made in their support.

Rather, this is a cold scientific (or would-be scientific) discussion about who is right about some provable (or unprovable) point of argument.

The best ethical arguments for and against the existence of God are ignored and both sides engage in parlor games that rely upon a sterile sophistry that can lead nowhere.

It is a rather cold and unfeeling argument either way.

In this discussion, if you believe in God it is only because he is the head honcho and who wouldn't try to support such an authoritarian figure. It is simply self-interest, survival instrict if you will, to support those who have complete power over you.

Earthly dictators are shown more affection.

On the other hand, if you are a disbeliver, it is not because you reject the apparent lack of moral order in the universe. You simply argue (albeit correctly) that God's existence cannot be proved by any principled intelligent argument and that arguments in favor of such existence cannot be disproved and therefore are rhetorically worthless.

I think this was addressed but I am not sure.

It has been stated that a moral high ground exists for the non-believer who lives through altruistic acts absent any forthcoming rewards... not going to heaven, I could die if I help this person and it does nothing for me, etc.. One of the "highest" forms of morality is helping any fellow human (relative or not) at cost to yourself while knowing there is no reward. People who study evolution have studied altruism for relatives and see benefit. So it makes sense helping a relative, especially close like a daughter or son, is an evolutionary benefit.

This particular idea puts helping another human at risk to yourself at a moral high.

Either I read this here or somewhere. I found the above interesting. I have (to the disgust of many basketball fans of which I am one) tried to understand where people are "coming from" on this thread. Its not always easy.

[pgardn]

No, all theists are playing make believe. They've done it for so long that even those who don't have a firm belief often feel uneasy about it.

In this day and age, it's sad that so many adults still hold on to ancient myths and mysticism and have constructed a system of mazes in which to hide their reasoning and common sense.

From an historical perspective its even worse than this and I think the author understands this. The crusades, burning witches, stoning s, yadayada... Some of the most inhumane acts are committed by believers in the name of their God or Gods.

[pgardn]

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

I would say the quest for knowledge is a human trait but as far as a purpose... Our purpose... One might ask why does there need to be a purpose or some sort of goal? I romantically assume there is a purpose but I understand the argument against it.

Imo knowledge can be used as one pleases. Gaining the knowledge and then the capability to make a nuclear weapon that can be transferred easily to a certain spot... scary. Imo science and the knowlege/models it gives us is amoral.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

if something is not true then it is just not true. You can adjust it so that it is true but then it is not the same thing. i am all for adjusting but i fail to see how you adjust obvious works of fictions such that they are to be accepted as the truth. all too often in that case wishful thinking takes the place of the truth.

and lets be clear here: i am very ambivalent between theism and agnosticism but at no point do i hold any truth whatsoever in any of the world's 5 major religions.

[Blue-Lightning]

Special pleading. What physics laws allow for an act to occur outside of time?

Any act ocurring outside of the universe wouldn't be subject to laws within this universe.

If the prime mover can be timeless, why can't matter and energy be timeless? You're, once again, pushing the problem back one place to the unknown, aka the god of the gaps.

Matter and energy can't be timeless because they are connected with the spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

No it doesn't. It's a cop out way of saying "no one knows, ergo a creator is necessary"

False. Provide another possible alternative.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, as is special pleading (accepting timelessness in a creator but rejecting infinity in time).

Time cannot be infinite in the reverse as it would prevent anyone from arriving at the present point. Other universes / en ies may or may not be governed by a similar system, and if not, could in fact be timeless.

Seriously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that's what you are trying to do. If you want to say "I don't know", most of us can accept that. If you want to say "I believe God created the Universe", we can accept that (as it's your belief), but when you try to use science and physics to prove a non sequitur outcome, you're losing before you even get started.

I have not said "I do not know," and I have not said "I believe God created the universe." I find it humorous watching the naive try to force me into classical, antiquated arguments. Perhaps we're just a simulation on a massive computer? Perhaps we're just a result of another universe's energy? Watching you guys try to be illogical in order to hold onto atheism against a perceived theist is pretty funny.

Imo time is a very human construct.

Time is based on the occurrence of events. If no events take place, there is no time. An invent is some specific physical phenomena. For example, if from now on, no physical events take place, time would end for me. I dont exactly know what this would entail as far as the fate of the universe (atoms with electrons in motion, etc...) There is no before the universe for me using the definition above because I know nothing of events.

If the definition above has huge gaps, or is more complex, then I personally cannot deal with time. Therefore some arguments are hard to follow. It seems we need to be careful with some words as we may not have the same definitions.

We actually don't know all we need to know about time in order to state where it comes from. It isn't a human construct as we can observe the past, present, and future around the universe simultaneously. Review that spacetime article I posted in this contribution.

Unlikely? More likely? Wait, are you guessing???

*** wrecked ***

I am saying that there is a very high probability that the universe reacted in an ordered system of phenomenons in the microseconds after the big bang. We see this because we see an orderly expansion in the aftermath of that event. I would put the chances above 99%, but I'm almost never 100% on anything. That's a basic philosophy point - the only thing one can know for certain is that one exists.

BL

[underdawg]

Don't take anything I said as a personal attack. A vast majority of both sides of my family are very Christian. I care and love them very much, and I would never abandon them. The problems I allude to occur on a grand scale and a speak on broad, non-personal levels.

A lot of what I said can be taken as presumptuous and condescending, but I would venture to say that it can be supported by sociologically supported stats. The reduction of families and crime is something I don't think relates to religious affiliation. That is just human behavior. Divorce rates may rise due to a lack of christian values, but unhappiness with a significant other has always existed. I would hypothesize that crime rates rise due to an increase in technology and security.

Like I said, the scientific community isn't out to disprove God... just find truth. I'm not intending to insult you personally with my stance in this meaningless debate on a San Antonio Spurs forum... especially someone like you that finds happiness in it all. I would never want that taken away from you.

Although I wouldn't agree with your stats and theories on the causes of crime or the importance of religion in the family, I do appreciate the courtesy of your response.

One more thing and then I'm done in this thread - for myself I wouldn't go off of the theories of El Nono or Blue Lighnting, but would instead look at the published works of the scientists that they've based their ideas from (as far as I know El Nono or BL haven't published anything). For me the Bible has given me the most answers, but for anyone that doubts the Bible or truly wants to challenge it or learn more about it, I would suggest the following people with solid credentials and understanding:

Hank Hanegraaf - www.equip.org
RC Sproul - www.ligonier.org
Chuck Swindoll - www.insight.org
John MacArthur - www.gty.org
Greg Laurie - www.harvest.org
Bob Coy - www.activeword.org

If you truly are looking for answers to your questions about the Bible, I would go there instead of challenging someone like me that doesn't know much except that the Spurs will not win a championship with Bonner getting 20 min. + in the playoffs.

[tmtcsc]

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism.

That is a very narrow statement and false.

Dogma and religion have been hijacked by the Greedy for their own purposes. It's like assigning a gun or knife blame in causing harm or death. We don't put weapons in jail or accuse them of breaking laws. In the same regard, the overwhelming religions that advocate peace and love shouldn't be condemned for extremists who misinterpret or use it for their own evil purposes.

Dogma is a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism.

That's ridiculous. Many people of faith seek higher understanding or intellectual pursuits.

[ElNono]

I am saying that there is a very high probability that the universe reacted in an ordered system of phenomenons in the microseconds after the big bang. We see this because we see an orderly expansion in the aftermath of that event. I would put the chances above 99%, but I'm almost never 100% on anything. That's a basic philosophy point - the only thing one can know for certain is that one exists.

BL

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for.



Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my , I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, .

[all_heart]

Priests molesting young boys. War in the middle east. War justified by said deity.

Modern: Of or relating to recent times or the present

Knowledge is understanding. Tell me what else can lead a person out of true depression to true happiness. Anything else is a temporary facade. Morality is a human creation. There will always be said evils performed by anomalies and errors in the system. Knowledge/education prevents mass support, thus reducing massive wrongdoing by ignorant justification. Isolated crimes cannot be stopped. Things like genocide can be stopped.

And I give you an F+ on the troll/personal attack concluding your overall fail of a reply.

Priests molesting young boys. War in the middle east. War justified by said deity... of course obviously, like I said scammers, I despise them just as much as you do.

Tolerance and understanding are part of human knowledge and yes they can help people climb out of a terrible funk. However, I'm not so sure genocide can be stopped by human knowledge, people like Hitler and Saddam are/were evil twisted men. I don't think any type of human therapy is going to help them.

I give you an F- for not providing clear intelligent examples in your first post, it's like you didn't even put any thought into it. Sorry if you saw it as a personal attack, I just couldn't help myself as I saw the BS meter go off the chart. Also I'm not sure "anomalies in the system" is a good choice of words to describe bad behavior/actions in the world. The world is not a machine, but I do get what you are saying.

[Blake]

If you can prove with absolute knowledge that the universe cannot self-generate (done), and it cannot exist infinitely in the past (done), then you are left with one option. Your stupidity is in immediately believing that refers to a god.

Accidental or random creation?

Could be either, could be purposeful, could be a chain reaction from another universe. Plenty of options there.

nothing contradictory to see here...

move along.

In all honesty, I don't even agree with All_heart on most things, but you guys are ridiculous. You basically just go around saying the word "butthurt," goading people like a couple of s. Seriously, at least get your own ty catchphrases instead of sharing one.

Yeesh...

BL

is a much better catchword than butthurt, tbh.

Yeesh

[all_heart]

I agree with you regarding the problems that can originate when one religion gets in conflict with another. Which is why I said in a previous post, that I'm ok with religion as long as people don't try to force their beliefs to other people.

I'm not a religion expert, but I believe that most of these religions promote peace. The fact that people believe in different gods shouldn't be a problem as long as people doesn't start claiming that one of these gods ordered his followers to kill the followers of the other gods. Even if that happens, you can't say that religion as a whole shouldn't exist because there is 1 or 2 groups of religious people who are causing problems.

And when something is good but has flaws, the smart thing to do is to evolve, adapt, fix that thing and not just get rid of the whole thing. Of course you would have a hard time trying to convince all these people to change some of their "rules". But you wouldn't be any more successful trying to convince them to change their beliefs completely.

And I think the social control aspect of religion is actually underrated (if this means what I think it means). Of course there are religious people doing bad things, just like there are plenty of people who follows science and knowledge that does bad things. But if we take religion away do you really believe people would behave the same way or in a better way? Considering that this is the source of morality to these people, what would keep them from doing bad things if these moral values were gone?

I doubt that fearing the law is more effective than fearing god, specially in countries where the law is often ineffective. Maybe this wouldn't be a big problem is U.S. but on poor countries there a lot of people relying on their faith in order to be happy and to live their life "the right way".

And just one thing I forgot to say about "science people": you should know that believing in god and following a religion are very different things. Even if one day we conclude that religion is no longer necessary, that doesn't mean people should stop acknowledging the possibility that god exists.

Well said.

[ElNono]

More coming

[all_heart]

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for.



Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my , I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, .

There you go again... You remind me of Chip from the Cable Guy when he uses that dude's back to slam dunk the ball..

BTW I don't think it counts if you are the only one keeping score. All those emoticons aren't your friends, so they don't count.

[Blue-Lightning]

BAM! Down the hammer falls.

Your degree of certainty on a guess is irrelevant. It's still a guess you pompous little

You built your giant straw on guesses and assumptions, *exactly* what you got called out for.

Because I quote the "cogito ergo sum" philosophical stance in response to whether I am 100% sure about an issue irrelevant over whether or not my original position is valid (1st law of thermodynamics, plus impossibility of an infinite future, equals necessity of an exterior creative source), you just ed all over your keyboard. Congrats on proving you are incapable of understanding key points versus ancillary ones. Now go look up cogito ergo sum.

Scoredboard
ElNono: 1
-Lighting: 0

To celebrate making you my , I shall call you Elsa from here on out.

Now, go make me a sammich, .

I don't have the time to go back and quote every instance in which I have asked you a question you've been unable to answer, or to quote each time you've said something which was incorrect. If I were able to do so, it would take up quite a bit of space. Feel free to spend the time doing the same to me.

Good luck,

BL

[Blue-Lightning]

nothing contradictory to see here...

move along.

I forget that I'm dealing with some people of lesser intelligence. Let me explain:

If the universe cannot be self-generated, and if it cannot have existed forever, then that means there is one option: a creator.

If you ask what is the creator, there are many options as to what that might be, and I already listed several out.

You really could use a neural douching.

is a much better catchword than butthurt, tbh.

Yeesh

You have to use something more than once to make it catchphrase / catchword, -for-brains.

BL

[Blake]

No question that religion has been and is still being used to hold back society in almost every aspect except maybe the arts.

[Blake]

More coming

You called it.

[silverblk mystix]

Many people on this thread are of a younger, more educated and modern generation. Few of us, if any, "non-believers" are arguing the existence of god with the intention of taking the source of happiness away from others.

The ultimate goal of life is to reproduce/continue... religion, imo, had a big role in establishing the foundations of human morality. Dogma was a core philosophy that led the way to establish a code of conduct and sense of purpose. That being said, it does not belong in this modern world anymore. It is time for mankind to graduate from kindergarten and move on to 1st grade, leaving outdated ways of thinking behind.

Dogma is only a tool for the greedy, and a clutch for the uneducated to feel a sense of justification in rejecting intellectualism. Reproduction is our purpose as a living thing, but the quest for knowledge is our purpose as a human. The goal isn't to disprove of God, but to find the truth.

War, murder, rape, molestation, corruption, and power... a species has enough of this backwards thinking to handle on it's own natural tendency to produce errors and anomalies in the system... it does not need religion to act as a multiplier to these evils and work as control panel over the ignorant. Knowledge is key to reducing the evils in this world; not religion.

Very inaccurate.

A human being has a purpose in life alright. Here it is: To live.

Simple.

So what if you reproduce and your offspring die before you? Are you a failure at life? No. You still lived a life.
If you never had kids...you still lived a life. A human being isn't responsible for the species to continue.

And who gives a about any of that garbage anyway if you are living your life moment to moment? If you truly experience and taste every possible moment of your life-that is human living.

If one ever gets near to this... nothing else will ever matter.

Only people who don't understand this simple thing worry about who created this?...does god exist?...is there life after death?....on and on...

Only people who have never died to the self worry about life after death....only dead people are worried about death. People who are truly alive and living fully moment to moment understand what love is...what truth is...what peace is...

Sleeping scientists worry about proving and disproving theories....

The truly enlightened are too busy enjoying the only life they have to care about the rest of this garbage....

[ElNono]

Because I quote the "cogito ergo sum" philosophical stance in response to whether I am 100% sure about an issue irrelevant over whether or not my original position is valid (1st law of thermodynamics, plus impossibility of an infinite future, equals necessity of an exterior creative source), you just ed all over your keyboard. Congrats on proving you are incapable of understanding key points versus ancillary ones. Now go look up cogito ergo sum.

I don't have the time to go back and quote every instance in which I have asked you a question you've been unable to answer, or to quote each time you've said something which was incorrect. If I were able to do so, it would take up quite a bit of space. Feel free to spend the time doing the same to me.

Good luck,

BL

Elsa, you've been exposed for the faux-intellectual fraud you are.

You're actually much, much worse than all_heart, because you built your narrative hiding behind science, just as much he built his behind scriptures. The huge difference is that under science, testable proof is required. All_heart has no such imposition.

The funniest part is that I just had to let you keep talking until you sunk yourself

Watching you contort yourself now is priceless

Scoreboard
ElNono: 1
Elsa: 0

Now go back to the kitchen and get that sammich ready

[Blake]

I forget that I'm dealing with some people of lesser intelligence. Let me explain:

If the universe cannot be self-generated, and if it cannot have existed forever, then that means there is one option: a creator.

If you ask what is the creator, there are many options as to what that might be, and I already listed several out.

You really could use a neural douching.

I've never seen the word creator used in any real science book of any kind or quoted by any real physicist of note.

Sorry, but your earlier linking to messageboards/blogs does not count as a real source.

Personally, I think an infinite "loop" of big bangs and big crunches in an infinite loop of multiverses is as plausible as anything I've seen or read.

I also think it's clear now that you don't know about the beginning of the universe or of message boards in general.

[Fernando TD21]

I think this was addressed but I am not sure.

It has been stated that a moral high ground exists for the non-believer who lives through altruistic acts absent any forthcoming rewards... not going to heaven, I could die if I help this person and it does nothing for me, etc.. One of the "highest" forms of morality is helping any fellow human (relative or not) at cost to yourself while knowing there is no reward. People who study evolution have studied altruism for relatives and see benefit. So it makes sense helping a relative, especially close like a daughter or son, is an evolutionary benefit.

This particular idea puts helping another human at risk to yourself at a moral high.

Either I read this here or somewhere. I found the above interesting. I have (to the disgust of many basketball fans of which I am one) tried to understand where people are "coming from" on this thread. Its not always easy.

I think I read about that in a different thread on this forum. I agree that from a moral point of view, a person who helps another person expecting nothing in return is a better person than those who helps other people just to "get into heaven" or to get any other type of reward.

But from a logical standpoint, the person receiving the donation usually doesn't care why the donation is being made. For them, a donation is a donation. With that in mind, I think that the percentage of religious people who makes donations and helps other people is bigger than the percentage of non-religious people. Since many of the religious groups often pressure their members to get involved with charity.