Baptisms at the Athletics Complex

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Regardless, I was more aggressive than was called for, and insulting to all theists, for which I will again apologize.

Well I feel warm inside now. 

[IndianTiger 95]

Have been reading all the comments, agree with RuninRed on this. 

I do understand 99% or more are christians, so it may not be an issue for anyone on the team. But if I were non christian and want to play at Auburn, would this turn me off. Does Auburn care? 

My question is do current Athletes and their parents expect this from Auburn Athletics Department? To be a christian environment. Is this a recruiting tool? 

[homersapien 11,354]

6 hours ago, triangletiger said:

True.  However, it seems to me that a naturalistic worldview carries a burden to explain how the universe came to be that is different from that of a theist, who is able to point to an eternal, un-embodied Mind as the source for the universe.

For the sake of coherence, any worldview should be able to respond to five basic questions:

1. Origen - Where did we come from?
2. Identity - Who are we?
3. Meaning - Why are we here?
4. Morality - How should we live?
5. Destiny - Where are we going?

I don't feel a "burden" to explain anything.  The burden of my understanding of the universe is one that exists to me personally;  I am not obligated to convince or persuade others to that understanding or belief.

What we know about the natural world - including responses to all of the questions you list - is defined by and limited to the sciences, even if incompletely.  

I have no problem with accepting those limitations and I don't recognize "hope or faith" as valid mechanisms to expand those limits, anymore that I would accept myth or superstition for doing so.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/22/2018 at 8:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

Auburn has a long and ugly history of former players airing its dirty laundry.  Names like Eric Ramsey, Stanley McClover, Troy Reddick, Chaz Ramsey, and Raven Gray come to mind, just to list a few.  

Don't kid yourself.  If someone after almost 20 years of Chette Williams' involvement with Auburn Athletics was made to feel left out, ostracized, pressured or uncomfortable, we'd have heard about it.  It's Auburn.  We never avoid it.  And you know Selena Roberts dug like hell trying to find anyone who could add some spice like that to her story and she offered nothing.

Trust me, most people who are uncomfortable with institutionalized religion typically decide to avoid it or ignore it.  It makes no sense to take personal stands in public when all it will do is harm your own reputation or personal standing.

A lack of public protest does not mean these people don't exist, even if they choose to keep their feelings to themselves.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/23/2018 at 12:32 PM, DAG said:

Being a Jewish Christian has happened since the start of Jesus ministry. That is why I am so confused as to why this concept is so hard to grasp. The first Christians were Jewish people, with a Jewish heritage, who followed the Torah word by word. Then Jesus came and turned the world upside down and said the law (Torah) is good because it shows you SIN, but it is also fallible because people thought by following it would make them good with God. Wrong. Only through him can they be good with God, which is what the whole sermon of the mount is all about. You have heard this.....(From the law), but I tell you....(Jesus completing the intended purpose).

 

The only difference is those who followed him eventually got the title " Christians " and those who refused to believe in the resurrection are not titled "Christians." Both groups are still Jewish. You don't lose your Jewish heritage or principles by choosing to have faith in the resurrection. That is why I am almost kicking myself for falling into this trap because the person who started this thread, although with good intentions, has such a limited knowledge of even the basics of religious concepts and it showed in his very first post. Being a Jewish Christian was very normal by early church standards. What was not normal and caused a heated debate with early Christians was the concept of a Gentile Christian (US). Enough New Testament history for the day.

Classic "argument from authority". 

Furthermore it's totally irrelevent to the actual point Red was making. 

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/23/2018 at 12:59 PM, keesler said:

No one's pushing religion, Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Episcopalian, Atheism, Mormonism, Muslim, or any other faith on our players.  Church attendance, bible study, vacation bible school, participation in prayer are not mandatory.   

The Christian religion may seem pronounced at AU and God may seem to be at the forefront of the university, because we follow Auburn and we see it in the fabric of the school.  I doubt outsiders see it at all.

I have no idea if other schools operate under a heavy faith based ideal at their core.  I do recall the UAT QB strongly professing his faith on TV after the championship game and he even mentioned his speaking in tongues and talking to God to get him through the 2nd half of that game.  He gave all the praise & glory to God, and even mentioned that his family may not agree with his public praise, but he did it anyway - it came from his heart.  Did his actions damage Alabama?   Tim Tebow was very pronounced and public with his faith and religion, wore scripture and bible verses on his face & arms in games and he very visibly demonstrated his religion, did it damage Florida? 

No one has suggested it was "mandatory".

What has been suggested is the manner in which it was done, implies  institutional sanction. (Institutional to include the coaches.)  

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 11:07 AM, Proud Tiger said:

I respect your view but it looks like the vast majority of posters in the thread disagree with you and Red.

Shock!!  

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 1:41 PM, RunInRed said:

So hypothetically, you’d be cool with athletes being able to use the practice fields behind the complex to burn American flags, if they so choosed?

With flags supplied by the University. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

48 minutes ago, IndianTiger said:

Have been reading all the comments, agree with RuninRed on this. 

I do understand 99% or more are christians, so it may not be an issue for anyone on the team. But if I were non christian and want to play at Auburn, would this turn me off. Does Auburn care? 

My question is do current Athletes and their parents expect this from Auburn Athletics Department? To be a christian environment. Is this a recruiting tool? 

I think it absolutely is, for those who are receptive to it. But I imagine the coaches let the players/families steer that conversation. Of course, Gus might use it as a criterion himself when choosing which kids to go after. I doubt that he'd pass on a quality player for not being Christian, but he does have to consider fit when building the roster. 

I dunno. We have a Jewish mens hoops coach. So there's a line drawn... or no line drawn, depending on how you look at it... at the institutional level. 

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 3:27 PM, TitanTiger said:

Biochemistry still can't tell us how literal nothingness can produce something-ness.  And by nothingness, I mean everything - matter, energy, the whole shebang.

And if you posit that energy just existed eternally without an initial cause, well then you're back at faith.

You are overlooking the option of admitting you simply don't know because you are at the limits of human understanding.  

But if I understand Hawkin's theory on time (which I probably don't) neither time nor matter existed at the moment of (infinite) singularity. 

So, by his calculation, yes, something did come from nothing.  

(Not that I understand the mathematics.)

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 4:17 PM, PigskinPat said:

Because millions of random chances falling perfectly into place millions of different times makes much more sense than intelligent design?

Yes. (But it's far, far more than millions.)

There is a scientific basis for evolution.  Not so for so-called "intelligent design" which is clearly religious-based.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 6:35 PM, AUsince72 said:

Being a Christian, I understand the reason for "arguing" the point of our Lord and Savior as it IS the great commission to spread the good news to any who will listen. Also, we are taught to do it lovingly as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we want what is best for all.

We are not to judge, though we are judged very harshly.  We are to strive to live as Jesus' example but to not pretend to be perfect.  Christians are as imperfect as anybody....I'm a prime example.  However, that is the beauty of the good news... We don't have to be.  We just need to trust in Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure what the point of arguing AGAINST Jesus is unless it's a deep seeded guilt. 

Point and laugh because your "superior"?  Sure, I get that....but why so angry and personal about your attacks against those who are blessed enough to know the love of Christ?  ....who actually only want you, too, to feel those same blessings?

And I'll end my sermon with a bumper sticker moment...

IF, it were to turn out we Christians are wrong and there's "nothing"?   ..oh well, the joke's on us.  At least we lived life with a beautiful purpose.

But if you believe there's no Hell....you'd BETTER be right.

God bless you all!

Maybe it's just me, but fear seems a poor foundation for one to base either intellectual or a religious commitment.

[TigerTale 357]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 3:54 PM, AUIH1 said:

When were you at AU?  I had a comparative anatomy professor who I thought was named Dr. Dobie who used to smoke in the classroom.  I was at AU from 1981-1986.

Now that you mention it, I think the correct spelling is Dobie. I was there from 95-97.  Transferred in and graduated with a degree in Zoology. I guess smoking in the classroom was out by the time I was there. I do remember that he referred to North America as the New World and would often go off on rants about how HIV was going to develop into a "super virus" and never be stopped. He was quite entertaining. Don't think I missed a single day of class.

[AUDub 11,131]

On 3/24/2018 at 3:17 PM, PigskinPat said:

Because millions of random chances falling perfectly into place millions of different times makes much more sense than intelligent design?

Many misconceptions. Evolution is pretty messy. Hard to call anything about it perfect. 

Arguments like this stem from a base misunderstanding of how probability works though.

Do you want to witness an improbable event right now? Get a deck of cards, shuffle it well and spread the cards in a line. Assuming a random shuffle, the probability of a card sequence in this order is about 8*10^67th. To be precise, 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 shuffles will result in that combination. That number is greater than the number of atoms on Earth. Really. And yet despite this very low probability, you just got that sequence. It may seem mindblowing if you haven't studied statistics.

Improbable things happen. It is nonsensical to argue backwards when probability is involved.

[keesler 5,924]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No one has suggested it was "mandatory".

What has been suggested is the manner in which it was done, implies  institutional sanction. (Institutional to include the coaches.)  

Bullcrap!

Early on in this marathon of a thread the following assertions were made:

• AU has an issue with "religious entanglement"
• AU has a "seedy underbelly" where religion is concerned
• A "top-down culture" has been established which has created an environment that emphasizes a particular religion
• A particular religion is "running publicly rampant inside the program"
• There is a historical "sketchiness of Chette" in AU athletics
• A particular religion is so organized within the program is it is covered up by a "charade of voluntary" - and it's about at "voluntary" as summer workouts
• AU is "tone deaf to the world beyond the programs own views and religious beliefs"
• What's happening is "not kosher"
• AU is clearly sponsoring/endorsing/promoting a particular religion within the athletic program and they do it under the guise of "voluntary
• AU athletics injects religion into the fabric of everything they do

My post was in response the above assertions from the OP.  I don't believe participation in religion within the program are mandatory either and I stated as much in my post.  There have assertions made that there is one single religion that is espoused solely within the program, and AU staffers organize and promote that religion to the point where players may feel that they have to participate much like they have to attend summer workouts in order to gain favor from the staff.  

[triangletiger 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't feel a "burden" to explain anything.  The burden of my understanding of the universe is one that exists to me personally;  I am not obligated to convince or persuade others to that understanding or belief.

What we know about the natural world - including responses to all of the questions you list - is defined by and limited to the sciences, even if incompletely.  

I have no problem with accepting those limitations and I don't recognize "hope or faith" as valid mechanisms to expand those limits, anymore that I would accept myth or superstition for doing so.

 

1) I didn't mean to imply that 'you' in particular had an obligation to explain or justify anything. There was the implicit assumption in there that the goal is convince someone that your worldview is true; and that in order to do this, there are certain questions that have to be answered.

2) Perhaps in a physical, mechanistic sense, what we know about the natural world is answered by science.  But there are areas of knowledge that science is not equipped to deal with.  For instance, questions of morality.  Science can never tell us what is good or bad.   Science cannot really answer questions about aesthetics either.  Science can observe that we find certain aspects beautiful (like symmetry or regularity, for example), but it cannot tell us why we find them beautiful.  Science cannot even tell us why science itself works or why we are able to apprehend any understanding of the universe we inhabit.

3)  Then I guess you are okay accepting the brute implications of your worldview that all this is pretty much meaningless (or 'absurd' as the existential thinkers like Sartre would have put it) and that your life will end in the blink of an eye and that even the universe will ultimately reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (the heat death) in which even the stars will be dead and there will be nothing but cold lifelessness.     

I can accept that there are limits to human understanding; I, as a theist, am well aware of my own inadequacies and limitations.  But I just find the naturalistic position untenable in that it can't answer the questions as to what started it all.  We have the Big Bang, but how did it come to happen?  (I know there are theories out there about the multiverse, but that just pushes the question out another level and is there is not scientific evidence to support the idea of a multiverse and requires faith to believe in the same as a religion.)  The second law of Thermodynamics says that, in a closed system (in this case, the universe),  the amount of entropy (disorder) can only increase or stay the same.  In our expanding universe. entropy is increasing.  So, what caused the universe to be in a state of minimal entropy at the beginning?  Who or what wound up the clock?    

 

Maybe you would call my view a 'god-in-the-gaps' position, but the concept of an eternal, all powerful creator makes more sense to me than 'it just happened'.

    

[AUsince72 11,084]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Maybe it's just me, but fear seems a poor foundation for one to base either intellectual or a religious commitment.

If you don't fear consequences then why follow ANY moral code, religious or otherwise?

Love is the foundation of Christianity.  Fear of Hell helps keep one focused on staying the moral path.

Think of it like a parent and child.  The child adores you because he loves you.  He behaves because he fears the consequences.

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Do you want to witness an improbable event right now? Get a deck of cards, shuffle it well and spread the cards in a line. Assuming a random shuffle, the probability of a card sequence in this order is about 8*10^67th. To be precise, 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 shuffles will result in that combination.

What combination?  

[Barnacle 9,064]

2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

What combination?  

I think having all the cards line up suited and in order 2-Ace. I'm only guessing because I think I read that statistic at some point.

[AUDub 11,131]

15 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

What combination?  

Combination was a poor choice of words. Sub sequence there. 

You're literally making history every time you properly shuffle a standard deck of cards. 

[AUDub 11,131]

26 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I think having all the cards line up suited and in order 2-Ace. I'm only guessing because I think I read that statistic at some point.

Any sequence shares those odds. 

The52 factorial with a deck of cards is a common example for shooting down dismissals of the post hoc probabilities involved in evolution. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

47 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Any sequence shares those odds. 

The52 factorial with a deck of cards is a common example for shooting down dismissals of the post hoc probabilities involved in evolution. 

ahh - would it be correct to say that those are the odds that you'd deal the exact same deck twice in a row? 

[DAG 33,955]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Classic "argument from authority". 

Furthermore it's totally irrelevent to the actual point Red was making. 

You should probably read my other 4-5 post directly responding to his intent instead of cherry picking one post 5 days later. You would be a little more informed , no? That post was in response to a question he had with his inability to understand our basketball coach being a Jewish Christian. Again, be a little more informed.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 3/24/2018 at 7:16 PM, Grumps said:

You know that evolution does not explain your consciousness.

How do you explain the fact that millions and millions of people since the beginning of recorded history have claimed to have an actual encounter with a supernatural God? People of many different backgrounds and languages have identical stories.

I used to be at least as skeptical as you are, but when God revealed Himself to me I had no choice but to know Him. I am a scientist. What should a scientist do in my situation? Reject the God who revealed Himself to me because science cannot prove Him? Rejecting my own observation would not be scientific at all, would it?

As a fellow scientist - and assuming She exists -  I celebrate our expanding understanding of Her creation.   Science reveals the mind of God.

And please, no offense intended, but God also revealed Herself to me.  While a student at Auburn no less.  Admittedly, LSD and/or peyote was involved.   

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Any sequence shares those odds.

With those odds? I doubt “any” sequence is sufficient for those odds to remain correct. 

http://bnugent.org/a-deck-of-cards-disproves-evolution/