Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Sounds like you have been reading Job, Cat. Do we only worship God in our prosperity and good health and do we use our worship asa bargaining chip to get those things? '"...does Job fear God for nothing?" (Job 1:9).

There are terrible things in nature and in the human spirit. Belief in God is not a force field or an antedote to death, disaster or pain. Good people and baby lambs will suffer.

I am probably not too clear on my response; but maybe we can have a reasoned discussion in spite of that.

The devil's alive and well in this world Capn'. Besides, parasitic worms gotta eat too you know...

Rob Iola wrote:The devil's alive and well in this world Capn'. Besides, parasitic worms gotta eat too you know...

Lamb farts contribute to global warming. Parasitic worms are better than carbon credits.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

I think the guy is missing the point. Yes there are certain things about the universe that are beautiful and one looks at them with wonder and there are other things that are unpleasant. But the point about "God" isn't about beauty or lack thereof. It's the complexity. It's looking at all those things...the planetary systems as well as the parasitic worms...and contemplating the likelihood that they could have arisen through random processes combined with the laws of physics. That's what makes you think there is an intelligence behind it.

People like this guy think they really have something. Think they've really come up with a "gotcha" statement or thought process. And they don't. They call themselves "free thinkers" but they're not. They constrain themselves by presuming the NON existence of God or whatever one calls it. They will not consider the existence of an intelligence behind what they see and thereby limit themselves. They are every bit as biased as the people who presume there is a God. Just in the other direction.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

I think the guy is missing the point. Yes there are certain things about the universe that are beautiful and one looks at them with wonder and there are other things that are unpleasant. But the point about "God" isn't about beauty or lack thereof. It's the complexity. It's looking at all those things...the planetary systems as well as the parasitic worms...and contemplating the likelihood that they could have arisen through random processes combined with the laws of physics. That's what makes you think there is an intelligence behind it.

People like this guy think they really have something. Think they've really come up with a "gotcha" statement or thought process. And they don't. They call themselves "free thinkers" but they're not. They constrain themselves by presuming the NON existence of God or whatever one calls it. They will not consider the existence of an intelligence behind what they see and thereby limit themselves. They are every bit as biased as the people who presume there is a God. Just in the other direction.

The guy is a comedian. He's trying to by funny. If you take him seriously you're missing the point.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I think the guy is missing the point. Yes there are certain things about the universe that are beautiful and one looks at them with wonder and there are other things that are unpleasant. But the point about "God" isn't about beauty or lack thereof. It's the complexity. It's looking at all those things...the planetary systems as well as the parasitic worms...and contemplating the likelihood that they could have arisen through random processes combined with the laws of physics. That's what makes you think there is an intelligence behind it.

People like this guy think they really have something. Think they've really come up with a "gotcha" statement or thought process. And they don't. They call themselves "free thinkers" but they're not. They constrain themselves by presuming the NON existence of God or whatever one calls it. They will not consider the existence of an intelligence behind what they see and thereby limit themselves. They are every bit as biased as the people who presume there is a God. Just in the other direction.

The guy is a comedian. He's trying to by funny. If you take him seriously you're missing the point.

Old Johnnie doesn't do comedy.

JohnStOnge wrote:
People like this guy think they really have something. Think they've really come up with a "gotcha" statement or thought process. And they don't. They call themselves "free thinkers" but they're not. They constrain themselves by presuming the NON existence of God or whatever one calls it. They will not consider the existence of an intelligence behind what they see and thereby limit themselves. They are every bit as biased as the people who presume there is a God. Just in the other direction.

You say he missed the point...
and you missed his point completely

"Where is your God now" is not a gotcha statement John it's a recognition that God is not actively participating with some magical hidden hand... it's plainly observing that God isn't scoring touchdowns for one team and starving people to death somewhere else

No gotcha
No subtle nuance
Just "where is God now..?"
just that simple / Moments after attributing something mystical and lovely (or a home run) to God
God is not magically interfering or moving chess pieces

BlueHen86 wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:The devil's alive and well in this world Capn'. Besides, parasitic worms gotta eat too you know...

Lamb farts contribute to global warming. Parasitic worms are better than carbon credits.

Religion is the opiate of the masses - Ted Turner.

You say he missed the point...
and you missed his point completely

"Where is your God now" is not a gotcha statement John it's a recognition that God is not actively participating with some magical hidden hand... it's plainly observing that God isn't scoring touchdowns for one team and starving people to death somewhere else

No gotcha
No subtle nuance
Just "where is God now..?"
just that simple / Moments after attributing something mystical and lovely (or a home run) to God
God is not magically interfering or moving chess pieces

You don't know that. You don't know that there is no "God" or whatever and you don't know that this "God" or whatever is not actively influencing or even controlling what happens. And something like the example of the parasitic worm doesn't change that.

The guy is a comedian. He's trying to by funny. If you take him seriously you're missing the point.

I did not know the guy is a comedian. I am proud to say I do not recognize him. But I do not think I am missing the point. He may have been trying to be funny in one respect as it is his job. But my bet would be that what he said does reflect his own outlook. He thought he was being clever when he made the statement and he wasn't. He was exhibiting very shallow thinking.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The guy is a comedian. He's trying to by funny. If you take him seriously you're missing the point.

I did not know the guy is a comedian. I am proud to say I do not recognize him. But I do not think I am missing the point. He may have been trying to be funny in one respect as it is his job. But my bet would be that what he said does reflect his own outlook. He thought he was being clever when he made the statement and he wasn't. He was exhibiting very shallow thinking.

Better shallow thinking than irrational thinking, I always say......

Better shallow thinking than irrational thinking, I always say......

Thinking that it's not likely that what we see around us is the result of random chance in the context of the laws of physics is not irrational thinking.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Better shallow thinking than irrational thinking, I always say......

Thinking that it's not likely that what we see around us is the result of random chance in the context of the laws of physics is not irrational thinking.

St. Wronge, you need to look at your ugly Conk self and assess whether you belong to the human race.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The guy is a comedian. He's trying to by funny. If you take him seriously you're missing the point.

I did not know the guy is a comedian. I am proud to say I do not recognize him. But I do not think I am missing the point. He may have been trying to be funny in one respect as it is his job. But my bet would be that what he said does reflect his own outlook. He thought he was being clever when he made the statement and he wasn't. He was exhibiting very shallow thinking.

Geez, get over yourself, will ya?

Grizalltheway wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I did not know the guy is a comedian. I am proud to say I do not recognize him. But I do not think I am missing the point. He may have been trying to be funny in one respect as it is his job. But my bet would be that what he said does reflect his own outlook. He thought he was being clever when he made the statement and he wasn't. He was exhibiting very shallow thinking.

Geez, get over yourself, will ya?

The guy is a fvck.

soul man wrote:Sounds like you have been reading Job, Cat. Do we only worship God in our prosperity and good health and do we use our worship asa bargaining chip to get those things? '"...does Job fear God for nothing?" (Job 1:9).

There are terrible things in nature and in the human spirit. Belief in God is not a force field or an antedote to death, disaster or pain. Good people and baby lambs will suffer.

I am probably not too clear on my response; but maybe we can have a reasoned discussion in spite of that.

It's not always easy to see the difference between God's will and something that is not God's will, and sometimes it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

You say he missed the point...
and you missed his point completely

"Where is your God now" is not a gotcha statement John it's a recognition that God is not actively participating with some magical hidden hand... it's plainly observing that God isn't scoring touchdowns for one team and starving people to death somewhere else

No gotcha
No subtle nuance
Just "where is God now..?"
just that simple / Moments after attributing something mystical and lovely (or a home run) to God
God is not magically interfering or moving chess pieces

You don't know that. You don't know that there is no "God" or whatever and you don't know that this "God" or whatever is not actively influencing or even controlling what happens. And something like the example of the parasitic worm doesn't change that.

You're acting like an idiot John...
I Personally do believe in God so relax there nut ball
Secondly - I'm speaking on behalf of the point "he" was making


You okay bro..?

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
You don't know that. You don't know that there is no "God" or whatever and you don't know that this "God" or whatever is not actively influencing or even controlling what happens. And something like the example of the parasitic worm doesn't change that.

You're acting like an idiot John...
I Personally do believe in God so relax there nut ball
Secondly - I'm speaking on behalf of the point "he" was making


You okay bro..?

I am fine. Note that you wrote, "... it's a recognition that God is not actively participating with some magical hidden hand..." I think it's reasonable to interpret your use of the terminology "it's recognition that" as opposed to something like "it's expressing the opinion that" you believe it to be known that "God" is not "actively participating."

That's what I was responding to.

St. Wronge, you need to look at your ugly Conk self and assess whether you belong to the human race.

I'm fine with being a member of the human race. But your comment still reminds me of

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBLDFzMsdU[/youtube]

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
You're acting like an idiot John...
I Personally do believe in God so relax there nut ball
Secondly - I'm speaking on behalf of the point "he" was making


You okay bro..?

I am fine. Note that you wrote, "... it's a recognition that God is not actively participating with some magical hidden hand..." I think it's reasonable to interpret your use of the terminology "it's recognition that" as opposed to something like "it's expressing the opinion that" you believe it to be known that "God" is not "actively participating."

That's what I was responding to.

You're still wrong.

St. Wronge, you need to look at your ugly Conk self and assess whether you belong to the human race.

I am very comfortable in my own skin as well as with the way I conduct myself during message board conversations. I am honest in what I say. While I defend my positions and believe in trying to back them up I focus on the arguments of those who disagree with me and do not get personal. I rarely...very rarely...if ever personally insult anybody. And at the same time I do not take it personally when I am personally attacked. I do not respond in kind.

That's how I believe in conducting myself and, while I have not been absolutely perfect in conforming to those outlooks, I've been pretty close. So I'm fine with myself.

JohnStOnge wrote:

St. Wronge, you need to look at your ugly Conk self and assess whether you belong to the human race.

I am very comfortable in my own skin as well as with the way I conduct myself during message board conversations. I am honest in what I say. While I defend my positions and believe in trying to back them up I focus on the arguments of those who disagree with me and do not get personal. I rarely...very rarely...if ever personally insult anybody. And at the same time I do not take it personally when I am personally attacked. I do not respond in kind.

That's how I believe in conducting myself and, while I have not been absolutely perfect in conforming to those outlooks, I've been pretty close. So I'm fine with myself.

You're a psyco fuck.

You're a psyco ****.

I think that if your objective is to jerk chains to see if you can get responses that approach is fine. It may work on a lot of people. But if your objective is to actually make a case for some position I don't think it works well. I think using that approach actually tends to detract from whatever substantive arguments a person may make. The message gets lost. The person who refrains from the "personal attack" approach, I think, comes off as more rational and credible. I think that, when you are in a debate with someone, having them resort to personal attacks while you remain impervious to them is to your advantage.

I don't mind you doing it because I think that by doing it you are helping me. But each must judge the approach they take on their own.