Baptisms at the Athletics Complex

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

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

No. Think of it like flipping a coin. Your odds are 50/50 each time you flip. The odds of getting a certain result are the same for each flip, independent of previous or future flips, however, the odds of getting a particular sequence of results go down with each subsequent flip. 

One flip:(1/2)=50%

Two flips:(1/2)(1/2)=25%

...

Ten flips:(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)=0.0009765625%

For the cards, on paper, it would look like this:

(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 )=1.537104e-136%

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

20 hours ago, Tiger said:

I get why people view the religion negatively -- and I'm certainly not making excuses for the bad apples (not even close), but moreso taking up for the majority regular citizens who don't take things to the extreme and get a bad rap when people make comments like @Proud Tiger made by taking a twisted version of what's said in the book and saying "it's part of the religion", and also saying non-Muslims can't be terrorists (Dylan Roof, anyone?)-- because it's simply false and a result of twisting things around. But before I dive into the rest, can you point to me where I put Christianity in a negative light. I apparently rubbed @aujeff11 the wrong way on this topic also, and I swear it has not been my intent to disparage any faith,  as I am not a follower of any religion but respect all of them, nor has my internal tone been anything but light and I hope that it does not read any other way, but certainly apologize if it has. I've been called a terrorist enough in my life (lol even after I have become agnostic/atheist) to no longer get worked up about ignorance regarding Islam, I'd rather try to bring my real life experiences with the religion to the table in response. Ya can't help people grow and learn by fighting negative with negative.

I don't generally like this form of discussion where someone counters with another negative rather than support their side of things, but throughout history violence in the name of religion has been fairly common. Right now the world is dealing with ISIS. I can point to a few terror causing instances that Christians, Jews, etc initiated as well, it's just right now we have to deal with ISIS's bull****. Yeah, trust me I think it's so weak that someone feels compelled to take violent measures if someone mocks their religion. It's like get over yourselves and stop being so sensitive. And the fact that their response to that is violence is appalling.

But to your point regarding people in power of corrupt governments: yeah it's really unfortunate and I am so thankful that I was born here and haven't had to live through any wacko political regimes like the ones in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the corruption is so commonplace in developing nations that these types of thing happen and have been happening for so long (it's not limited to the Middle East, either). It's unfortunate they don't have the same solid political infrastructure we are fortunate enough to have. I don't think your post was anti-Muslim and you detailed your thoughts and why you thought Islam is looked at in a negative light, as I said before I get why it's viewed negatively but it's a misrepresentation which causes the actions of a few to be cast on all of 1.8 billion people by some. 

First off, I apologize if I misunderstood your argument because it just came off as hostile and aggressive in painting Christianity as being extreme. If you don't view Christianity negatively then I'm sorry for what I said.

To the red bolded part, but that's pretty much what you posted in making a comparison between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists. It was basically saying that Christianity has just as many extreme folks as Islam does. That couldn't be more of a false argument. If you were comparing the 1800's Christianity to now, you'd have a more valid point. But Christianity has evolved some in the last century or two. Do you deny that?

To be fair it's not just you making that comparison. I've seen many of those who aren't Christian and even some people who are Christians feel the need to defend criticism of Islam and want to paint a picture that Christians and Muslims have the same amount of bad people. Are there Christian terrorists? Yes.... Are there Christian extremists? Yes... Are there as many bad Christians as there are bad Muslims? If you're going to use qualifiers like terrorists or extremists then my answer is no. There is no where close to being an equal or comparable amount of bad people between the two. One religion at the moment has rapidly been churning out terrorists. In fact, no other religion at the moment in my opinion comes close to producing as many terrorists or extremists. It may sound mean or unfair but unfortunately it's the reality. I wish it wasn't because I do think there are a lot of good Muslims.

You see in many countries in the Middle East, where Islam is the predominate religion, gays being killed. How many Christian countries are there where gays are being killed simply for being gay and it's not a crime? That's considered a hate crime here in the U.S. and people are charged with it 

My point is not the same as Proud Tiger's. I've never implied or made any suggestion that there were no Christian terrorists or that Christians couldn't be terrorists.. But I'm also not  going along with comparing Christians to having just as many terrorists or extreme folks as Islam. That comes off as just a convenient stance for you to lump all religions together as having bad people and it comes off as a lazy argument to me.

For the record in case you're wondering, I am Christian. I believe in God. However; I don't go to church and haven't been to church in years. I know there are many Christians who are hypocrites and those who act one way in church but don't act the same way outside of church. I'm not fond of those type Christians. I try to be a good person and I also don't think you have to go to church to prove how good of a Christian you are. I don't consider myself an overly religious person and I certainly don't go out of my way to promote that I'm Christian. I feel that it's a personal decision and I'm not going to force my views on anyone. 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/25/2018 at 4:20 PM, PigskinPat said:

But the THEORY of evolution and the Big Bang THEORY have not been proven to be true, and therefore cannot be stated as FACT.

Please, look up the scientific meaning of theory, and Theory.

All caps mean nothing.  But there is a difference between lower cast theory, and upper case Theory.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/25/2018 at 4:59 PM, PigskinPat said:

Very well said. I believe that intelligent design and certain “levels” of evolution can coexist and very well be a part of His design. The theory of evolution that has us believe that we evolved from pond scum through millions of statistically impossible occurrences to me takes greater faith than believing in a Divine Creator.

Why? 

Does the "divine creator" have to wave a magic wand and "poof"?   

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

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

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

Mr. Nugent isn't getting it. Again with the absurdity of trying to work backwards with probability. Probability represents uncertainty. 

To go back to the coin flip example, if one flips 1,000 heads in a row, the odds of the next flip are still 50/50, even though people may think tails is more likely because of the lack of tails in the past. This is because we're often unfamiliar with what a truly random sequence can look like. We expect a random sequence of heads and tails to look evenly distributed between the two options, such as HHTHTTHTTH, while the sequence HHHHHTTTTT looks less random. While the latter might have more order as there are more combinations that are evenly distributed than combinations where all the heads are clustered together, it is not any less likely a combination. We simply infer that this is not random because of the higher order, even though this is mathematically incorrect. By the fact that we perceive a sequence such as HHTHTTHTTH as more random than HHHHHTTTTT, we expect a more closely packed alternation between heads and tails. A string of one result is expected to switch to the other within three or four coin flips, not continue on as a streak.

Looking at how the odds work, we can see why the expectation of a change is wrong and why the this  is fallacious. The odds for any particular combination of ten coin flips is as follows:

(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)=0.0009765625%

This is true for any potential combination. Therefore the combination HHHHHHHHHTis precisely the same as HHHHHHHHHH. Illustrated another way, we can look at the probability from the perspective after the first 9 flips. This is:

(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1/2)=50%

All the 50:50 probabilities have changed into 100% certainties. This is because probability represents uncertainty. After a fact, we no longer have any uncertainty. If we've flipped nine coins, they can be on the table ahead of us with a clear result, we're no longer unsure which ones will land heads and which ones will land tails because they've already done so. While flipping 9 heads in a row is a significantly unlikely event, as it's just one potential combination out of 512 it is no more special (except for the perceived ordering) than any other combination. After the event occurs, however, the probability of it occurring is 1.

[AUDub 11,147]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Please, look up the scientific meaning of theory, and Theory.

All caps mean nothing.  But there is a difference between lower cast theory, and upper case Theory.

Germ theory is just a theory. Miasmas cause disease. 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/25/2018 at 5:15 PM, Proud Tiger said:

Terribly wrong but you are entitled to your opinion. I have a MS in Aerospace Engineering and worked for NASA for 36 years. Science has only strengthened my faith.

So, do you think faith will "triumph" over science? 

How exactly is that supposed to happen?  Assuming you believe science reveals the truth, how does faith overcome the truth??

That's illogical.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/25/2018 at 6:10 PM, Proud Tiger said:

I take "typical engineer" as a personal/snide remark by someone who thinks they are better

Not me.  I know exactly what she's talking about.  

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/25/2018 at 7:53 PM, TitanTiger said:

As I said earlier, that's a false dichotomy.

Yet, it's still contested.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/26/2018 at 3:06 AM, MadtownTiger said:

Yes and no.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Jefferson's words as "gospel" (pun intended) in some rulings, and ignored them absolutely in others.  So SCOTUS is really no help at all on this topic.  The phrase seemingly relates to the Legislative branch, because it dovetails with the first amendment, but I sincerely don't think that's what Jefferson meant.  I believe his comments were directed at the Executive branch.

The phrase is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, so the proverbial wall is more of an assumption than a right.  And you know what they say about assumptions and rights, everybody's got them and they all stink.  Maybe that's supposed to be opinions and.....digressions.

The phrase "separation of church and state" came from an open letter Jefferson wrote to a group of Quakers in New York or Pennsylvania (I think, might have been Baptists) regarding the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.  Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution wasn't the most popular document, and the vote to ratify was razor thin in about a third of the colonies/states.  When Jefferson was elected the Constitution was only about ten years old, and state charters adopted before the Revolution were often regarded as the prevailing authorities.  The group had written to the new president to weigh in on the issue of state charters that didn't specifically adopt the language of the First Amendment.  

But here's the thing, it's counter-intuitive to our thinking now, but they were petitioning for a greater separation.  As protestants they believed that while a legislator (a king or a pope or a president) had the right to be religious, they lacked the authority to dictate any religious edicts one way or the other.  Further, they argued the prime role of government is simply to to administer justice among citizens.  In his letter Jefferson agreed with everything they proposed---including the government's recognition of a sovereign God---and reaffirmed his support by introducing an allusion to something written 150 years earlier about a cultivated religion being the wall between civility and the chaotic world.  

Simply put, the context of Jefferson's words to the Quakers(?) was not about keeping religion out of government as much as keeping government out of religion.

WDE!

With all due respect, I fail to see much difference. 

For example, in this case, the issue is the question of government supporting a particular religion, which would certainly constitute the latter,  if not confirming the former.

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

No. Think of it like flipping a coin. Your odds are 50/50 each time you flip. The odds of getting a certain result are the same for each flip, independent of previous or future flips, however, the odds of getting a particular sequence of results go down with each subsequent flip. 

One flip:(1/2)=50%

Two flips:(1/2)(1/2)=25%

...

Ten flips:(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)(1/2)=0.0009765625%

For the cards, on paper, it would look like this:

(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 )=1.537104e-136%

So if I gave you a random order of cards, and you then shuffled the deck, those would be the odds that the deck would would represent the order I just gave you.

- Barnacle, Grade A Mathlete 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/26/2018 at 11:12 AM, TitanTiger said:

The false dichotomy is that your only options are to take the Genesis account literally and thus believe in a Creator, or believe in science and not believe in God.

Now that's interesting.  

First, I will speak for belle and say that her post was more metaphorical than literal - at least that's the way I interpreted it. 

But your post begs the question of exactly what represents essential Christian dogma, ex the bible.  If it's a "false dichotomy" what's the proper analogy?

.

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/26/2018 at 1:55 PM, PigskinPat said:

Nope, nope, and nope. You can claim to be anything you want, but if your actions prove contrary, then you are not what you claim to be. McVeigh was agnostic, didn't believe there was a heaven or hell, so I have no idea where you came up with that. Eric Rudolph attended a Christian Identity church. They espouse a racist and white supremacist view of Christianity, but those views are denounced by true followers of Christ. Conditt was a part of a "Christian" survivalist group who's views don't align with a true follower of Christ. Also, mental illness I would bet played a HUGE role in all three's actions. You can call yourself a vegetarian, but if you go around eating meat, a vegetarian you are not. 

That's the exact argument mainstream Muslims make.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 hours ago, Barnacle said:

So if I gave you a random order of cards, and you then shuffled the deck, those would be the odds that the deck would would represent the order I just gave you.

- Barnacle, Grade A Mathlete 

Go back to the coin analogy. 

If you said to me “I wonder if we‘ll both get heads” before flipping the coin, the odds would be 25% flips would match. (1/2)(1/2)=0.25

However, if you flipped a coin and got heads, then handed it to me to flip, asking “I wonder if you’ll get heads like me,” I would have a 50% shot of it resulting in the same flip as yours. (1)(1/2)=0.5

Each subsequent iteration adds uncertainty, but once an event occurs, it’s out of the realm of probability and into the realm of certainty.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Now that's interesting.  

First, I will speak for belle and say that her post was more metaphorical than literal - at least that's the way I interpreted it. 

But your post begs the question of exactly what represents essential Christian dogma, ex the bible.  If it's a "false dichotomy" what's the proper analogy?

I'm not sure how to answer that.  All I can say is that most Christians would, at a most basic level, adhere to the Apostles Creed.  And all it says on this subject is 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...

It doesn't specify or demand dogmatically a specific "how" He did it.  There are many ways to make things even for us humans.  There are infinitely many more ways in which an omnipotent being could make things.  If God chose to use a long drawn out process that we call evolution to form creation, so be it.  That's the only reason I called it a false dichotomy or false choice.  I don't think I have to choose between science and God - or between a strictly literal narrative take on the Genesis creation account and utterly naturalistic, happenstance evolution. 

I think like the church fathers throughout history that science is simply man discovering the way God made the universe to work. And frankly, many of them including Origen,  St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas were positing an understanding of the creation account in Genesis as non-historical/literal and instead as allegorical and even that God created the living things with the potential to develop over time.  And this was centuries before Darwin so it wasn't an attempt to glide with the prevailing wind of the day either.

There's a site with a ton of articles you might find interesting called Biologos (linked in the sentence about Augustine, et al above).  They would advocate for a position they call theistic evolution.  If I had to say what my position on the matter is, they would come the closest to expressing it.

[Barnacle 9,064]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Go back to the coin analogy. 

If you said to me “I wonder if we‘ll get the same result” before flipping the coin, the odds would be 25% flips would match. (1/2)(1/2)=0.25

However, if you flipped a coin and got heads, then handed it to me to flip, asking “I wonder if you’ll get heads like me,” I would have a 50% shot of it resulting in the same flip as yours. (1)(1/2)=0.5

Each subsequent iteration adds uncertainty, but once an event occurs, it’s out of the realm of probability and into the realm of certainty.

Right, so my example holds, right? It's essentially the same as me handing you the coin. If you have a 6-sided dice, and I predict the number "5" before you roll, you have a a 1/6 chance of landing on a 5. If I give you an order of cards, and then you shuffle the deck, you have a 1 and whatever that big number was chance of dealing the deck in the order I just uttered. 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/27/2018 at 11:09 AM, Proud Tiger said:

True but the foundation for our so-called Judeao-Christian ethics was formed by the commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Lots of people like yourself are good people for abiding by those age old  standards.

P.S.-----no need to call anyone's post horse manure in an otherwise very civil thread.

I think his point was that morals existed way before the old testament.  

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/27/2018 at 12:26 PM, aujeff11 said:

No, that’s not what he meant. He’s saying good works alone doesn’t lead one to Heaven. 

I think the question was are good works necessary at all?

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/27/2018 at 1:00 PM, Proud Tiger said:

You really need to read before barking. I didn't call anyone out for their beliefs one way or the other. And I didn't by any means claim possession of morality. If you read my post it clearly says that moral standards (basic decency as you call it) originated in the OT. So what am I to "get over"? It's been a great thread. Don't turn it into personal attack.

Damn PT.  Either own what your write or correct it. 

You act as if you don't really understand what you said.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

Right, so my example holds, right? It's essentially the same as me handing you the coin. If you have a 6-sided dice, and I predict the number "5" before you roll, you have a a 1/6 chance of landing on a 5. If I give you an order of cards, and then you shuffle the deck, you have a 1 and whatever that big number was chance of dealing the deck in the order I just uttered. 

You said random, so I added an iteration assuming you meant to shuffle.

If you predicted beforehand that we would both roll a 5, the odds would be (1/6)(1/6), a hair under 3%

If you handed me the die after rolling a 5, betting I could not get a 5, the odds would be (1)(1/6), a hair under 17% I would end up with a 5 same as you.

If you predicted before your shuffle our decks would be matching whatever order, the odds would be (1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000), or 1.537104 × 10^-136%

If you handed me the deck after your shuffle, betting I could not match your shuffle, the odds would be (1)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000), or 1.2397999 × 10^-68%

[homersapien 11,362]

6 hours ago, keesler said:

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.  

I missed the part in the above post where someone actually claimed it was "mandatory". 

Perhaps you can isolate it for me and highlight it?

The whole point of the OP was to express concern about the appearance of institutional sanction of a religious faith, which is a legitimate concern.  But it does not rest on the assumption it was mandatory.

This is a written forum, so a standard of literalness is not unreasonable.  Your inference is your own issue.

So bull crap yourself.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not sure how to answer that.  All I can say is that most Christians would, at a most basic level, adhere to the Apostles Creed.  And all it says on this subject is 

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth...

It doesn't specify or demand dogmatically a specific "how" He did it.  There are many ways to make things even for us humans.  There are infinitely many more ways in which an omnipotent being could make things.  If God chose to use a long drawn out process that we call evolution to form creation, so be it.  That's the only reason I called it a false dichotomy or false choice.  I don't think I have to choose between science and God - or between a strictly literal narrative take on the Genesis creation account and utterly naturalistic, happenstance evolution. 

I think like the church fathers throughout history that science is simply man discovering the way God made the universe to work. And frankly, many of them including Origen,  St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas were positing an understanding of the creation account in Genesis as non-historical/literal and instead as allegorical and even that God created the living things with the potential to develop over time.  And this was centuries before Darwin so it wasn't an attempt to glide with the prevailing wind of the day either.

There's a site with a ton of articles you might find interesting called Biologos (linked in the sentence about Augustine, et al above).  They would advocate for a position they call theistic evolution.  If I had to say what my position on the matter is, they would come the closest to expressing it.

That's a very reasonable and admirable attitude, if not typical.  

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

You said random, so I added an iteration assuming you meant to shuffle.

If you predicted beforehand that we would both roll a 5, the odds would be (1/6)(1/6), a hair under 3%

If you handed me the die after rolling a 5, betting I could not get a 5, the odds would be (1)(1/6), a hair under 17% I would end up with a 5 same as you.

If you predicted before your shuffle our decks would be matching whatever order, the odds would be (1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000), or 1.537104 × 10^-136%

If you handed me the deck after your shuffle, betting I could not match your shuffle, the odds would be (1)(1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000), or 1.2397999 × 10^-68%

But I digress. The point I was making is that the “random chance” argument from incredulity doesn’t hold water. Improbable doesn’t mean impossible, and improbable things happen all the time. It may seem astonishing after the fact that you did something with a one in eighty unvigintillion(ish) chance of happening, but it happens a lot more than most realize. 

Even then, evolution isn't a random process. While genetic mutations may appear randomly, the natural selection of specific traits to produce a statistically significant allele frequency in a population is deterministic. If a gene aids survival with respect to any particular environmental stressor, then it is selected by means of the survival and reproduction of the individuals carrying that gene and perpetuates in the population of organisms. If the trait is detrimental to survival, it will leave organisms vulnerable to a particular environmental stressor and through attrition lower the frequency of the allele contributing to that trait in the subject population.

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 hours ago, triangletiger said:

But I just find the naturalistic position untenable in that it can't answer the questions as to what started it all. 

This would seem to be the same logic the ancient Greeks used when inventing their belief system. 

 

14 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

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

Because there's no reason not to? Because not harming your environment for any reason other than self-preservation and propagation of the species is actually more natural than the alternative? 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

My point is not the same as Proud Tiger's.

Always a good thing to clarify.

One note on Christian extremists/terrorists vs Muslim extremists/terrorists: you have to consider waaaaaay more than just the religion itself. You have to consider geopolitics. You have to consider the social and economic conditions in predominantly Christian countries vs predominantly Muslim countries. 

When you look at extremist groups of any persuasion, there is almost always one constant: young, disenfranchised males. Extremism is typically a function of desperation, anger and testosterone guided by charismatic, self-motivated leaders using a cause as a recruiting tool. Anyway, look at the countries where the Al Quaedas and ISISs and such come from. Extremely impoverished nations where even the most basic and necessary resources are scarce. People are desperate.

Or look at Nazis and other European fascist/nationalist groups. They tend to be underemployed males in countries with high immigrant populations, just like extreme racists/nationalists here. Or look at the drug trade. The Pablo Escobars of the world don't build these armies without having a lot of really poor, desperate young males at their disposal. (75% of Columbia identifies as Catholic. Pablo Escobar ran one of the largest, most brutal terrorist organizations in history.) The Third Reich was a result of Germany's economy being crippled by the Treaty of Versailles. The Khmer Rouge was a response to heavy Chinese and Vietnamese influx into Cambodia. The list goes on. Those who want turn their anger towards those who have. 

You mentioned murdering gays. Well, Christianity supposedly doesn't approve of homosexuality, either. But we live in a society that doesn't tolerate murder. Some societies also permit honor killings for adultery, or really anything. That's not a function of religion, although I'm sure religion is sometimes used as a justification as it often is in Christian societies for equal or lesser offenses. I can't defend any society or religion that is sexist or intolerant, but that's a different conversation. To my knowledge, Islam doesn't actually command that homosexuals be murdered.