Baptisms at the Athletics Complex

[TitanTiger 20,481]

1 minute ago, AUIH1 said:

But Red made it a religion topic on his own.  Is there a dichotomy between posters versus Mods?

wde

 

Yes. Admins and mods have some discretion on things like this that you don’t, as is typical of most internet message boards. We try not to abuse the privilege. 

[TitanTiger 20,481]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes. Admins and mods have some discretion on things like this that you don’t, as is typical of most internet message boards. We try not to abuse the privilege. 

But also just to clarify, RuninRed started it as an Auburn football–adjacent subject. But it long ago ceased being about that and became a general debate on the merits of religion versus atheism  It was only after it went in that direction for several pages that I decided to move it. Let’s move on  

 

 

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

2 hours ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

In time for Holy Week, I can properly allow myself to participate (though catching up to relevance may take a minute).

A start?

2 hours ago, Tiger said:

Exactly.

The worst part is nobody actually knows. We are all guessing!

“Cogito ergo sum.” [Rene’ Descartes?]

“I think, therefore I am.” [a common English translation]

 

Whether or not M. Descartes actually ever said that, ever meant for the quote to be used in this context, or ever even existed, the logic is ironclad. I know that I am.

2 hours ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

The Faith part is important

in any belief system.

Am I who or what I think I am?  Are you at all?  Where did I come from and where am I going?

All else is belief. I do find, however, that I must believe, else why? why anything?

At roots of sentient existence, some sort of leap seems necessary.

 

Can I start here?

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

25 minutes ago, AUld fAUx@ said:

A start?

“Cogito ergo sum.” [Rene’ Descartes?]

“I think, therefore I am.” [a common English translation]

 

Whether or not M. Descartes actually ever said that, ever meant for the quote to be used in this context, or ever even existed, the logic is ironclad. I know that I am.

Am I who or what I think I am?  Are you at all?  Where did I come from and where am I going?

All else is belief. I do find, however, that I must believe, else why? why anything?

At roots of sentient existence, some sort of leap seems necessary.

 

Can I start here?

 

You can start with knowing that you are.  The next question is, Can you trust what your senses are telling you?

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

12 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

You can start with knowing that you are.  The next question is, Can you trust what your senses are telling you?

Only on faith.

ETA - underline

ETFurtherA - Can you advise me of an avenue that would pin that one down better?

[AUIH1 1,515]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:49 PM, RunInRed said:

I believe in the separation of church and Auburn Athletics ...

That has not been the case since Jay Jacobs has been AD.

wde

[augolf1716 21,130]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Hey, we like our quiet little corner with our beer, picture and music thread.

 

agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

8 hours ago, Tiger said:

Dude. Those people are not real Muslims. Just like you don't consider those names you saw mentioned as real Christians because they mask their hate behind a twisted version of the religion. It's the same deal. Real Muslims feel exactly like you do regarding that. "They aren't real Christians" = "They aren't real Muslims". Islam is the second biggest religion in the world. If the religion actually taught that there would be 1.8 billion people acting like this. Just like there aren't 2.2 billion people who buy into the KKK's "version" of Christianity or the people who bomb or shoot up Planned Parenthood, which are in fact acts of terror.

As far as the virgins, that's what I'm talking about as far as twisting things. I was a non-practicing Muslim for I'd say 20 years of my life and been exposed to and am related to real, practicing Muslims. That 72 virgins thing is not even in the Quran like you've unfortunately heard in the media. This idea of 72 virgins waiting for a killer is some completely twisted idea that sick people instill in impressionable, and easily preyed upon people and use that as a guise to cause harm to others. The Quran says you can't kill people just like all other holy books. In fact, take a look at this link it has 10 quick notes on how Islam forbids terrorism kind of like of the Bible forbids the heinous acts of the KKK, Timothy Mcveigh, Planned Parenthood bombers, etc.

Just take 5 quick minutes to open your mind - it includes direct quotes from the Quran : https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

I'd post the notes from the link myself for you but since they're bulletted I don't want to make this post any longer than it needs to be lol

I don't think all Muslim are terrorists or bad people. I think unfortunately the stereotype on Islam not being a peaceful religion is for so long now that that particular religion has waged multiple wars and the Middle East has been corrupted by the religion. I think even a lot of anti-terrorist type people can concede that not all Muslims are terrorists. But when the terrorists have largely been able to control the region for so long it does make Westerners question how many of the moderates or 'good' Muslims there are because they can never seem to overpower the bad actors. You have a countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that support and have supported state sponsored terrorism and terrorist groups. It just always appears as though the bad actors in the Middle East always seem to have control and power in the region.

The U.S. fought a Civil War in the 1860's over slavery. The South used Christianity to justify slavery being acceptable and being allowed to exist. The North won the war and even though the South continued to struggle with segregation into the 20th century, this country has always managed to have the good side overpower the bad actors and those who perverted Christianity in order to gain support for slavery and racism. Even at the peak of the KKK's relevancy and membership  in the 1920's, they didn't completely overtake the governments of the South. They may have had some power with politicians like George Wallace and some police departments aiding them, but they didn't control or overtake the South. Members of the KKK still went to jail and were convicted of their murders in the 1960's. They didn't control everything in the South the way Islamic terrorists have managed to control large parts of the Middle East.

Also, in this country when shows like South Park mock Christians, or Mormons, you don't have killings or people being beheaded for mocking those religions. Yet, if you mock Islam or draw a picture of Muhammad then you have  killings, be-headings, or attacks. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Muhammad and had multiple attacks against them by Islamic extremists. 

I'm not arguing that I hate Islam or Muslims. I'm just making an argument of why so many people view the religion negatively. You and several others on here have already expressed that you view Christianity negatively and that Christians are just as bad as any other religious group of people.  This is my counter argument. So  if you could please don't try to respond by calling me anti-Muslim or something similar.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But also just to clarify, RuninRed started it as an Auburn football–adjacent subject. But it long ago ceased being about that and became a general debate on the merits of religion versus atheism  It was only after it went in that direction for several pages that I decided to move it. Let’s move on  

 

 

Just don't move my Stormy Daniels thread into football one. 

EDIT: pleaseeeee

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

51 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Just don't move my Stormy Daniels thread into football one. 

EDIT: pleaseeeee

Why not, she would for sure get "injured" in spring practice.

[homersapien 11,373]

I don't have any problem with Auburn athletics being friendly for any religion, but I share the same concerns as Red regarding the appearance of Auburn institutionalizing a specific religion - Christianity in this case.  Such a ceremony conducted in the athletic facility by a member of the staff seems to do exactly that.  It should have been done off-site.  

And if we are going to have a "chaplain" on staff, he needs to be able to minister to religious  beliefs other than his own.  

 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/22/2018 at 2:35 PM, triangletiger said:

I'm all for fairness (and certainly have no problems with baptisms being held in the athletic complex), but I can see this opening a real can of worms.  What if, hypothetically speaking, we had an athlete (or athletes) who are members of the Native American Church who ingest peyote as part of their religious and cultural tradition?  Would that be allowed?

Hell, how about a Muslim player who needs to interrupt practice to pray?

[Tiger 8,825]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

I don't think all Muslim are terrorists or bad people. I think unfortunately the stereotype on Islam not being a peaceful religion is for so long now that that particular religion has waged multiple wars and the Middle East has been corrupted by the religion. I think even a lot of anti-terrorist type people can concede that not all Muslims are terrorists. But when the terrorists have largely been able to control the region for so long it does make Westerners question how many of the moderates or 'good' Muslims there are because they can never seem to overpower the bad actors. You have a countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that support and have supported state sponsored terrorism and terrorist groups. It just always appears as though the bad actors in the Middle East always seem to have control and power in the region.

The U.S. fought a Civil War in the 1860's over slavery. The South used Christianity to justify slavery being acceptable and being allowed to exist. The North won the war and even though the South continued to struggle with segregation into the 20th century, this country has always managed to have the good side overpower the bad actors and those who perverted Christianity in order to gain support for slavery and racism. Even at the peak of the KKK's relevancy and membership  in the 1920's, they didn't completely overtake the governments of the South. They may have had some power with politicians like George Wallace and some police departments aiding them, but they didn't control or overtake the South. Members of the KKK still went to jail and were convicted of their murders in the 1960's. They didn't control everything in the South the way Islamic terrorists have managed to control large parts of the Middle East. 

Also, in this country when shows like South Park mock Christians, or Mormons, you don't have killings or people being beheaded for mocking those religions. Yet, if you mock Islam or draw a picture of Muhammad then you have  killings, be-headings, or attacks. Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Muhammad and had multiple attacks against them by Islamic extremists. -- 

I'm not arguing that I hate Islam or Muslims. I'm just making an argument of why so many people view the religion negatively. You and several others on here have already expressed that you view Christianity negatively and that Christians are just as bad as any other religious group of people.  This is my counter argument. So  if you could please don't try to respond by calling me anti-Muslim or something similar.

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. 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:48 PM, triangletiger said:

But everyone has to believe something.

Just not necessarily a "God".

[homersapien 11,373]

On 3/22/2018 at 8:22 PM, TeBoneAU said:

What a AUsome declaration by those young men!!!

Ironically, it's OK for it to be awesome, the problem comes with it being AUsome.

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just not necessarily a "God".

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?

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You and several others on here have already expressed that you view Christianity negatively 

@Tiger never even came close to saying that he views Christianity negatively. Some of y'all really need to drop the persecution complex. (Far be it from me to ask anyone like you to explore the irony and insanity of a Christian in the US to even flirt with the notion of feeling persecuted to begin with.)

 

9 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. 

Dude. You have been a model of restraint in this thread. I stand in awe and admiration. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

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

You're wrong. 

That's the problem with theists. They feel that they have to have those answers. So when they don't, they just make them up. 

Edit: I went a little hard there. I think I'm responding to a particular brand of arrogance that you might not have actually been displaying in your post. Apologies if I offended. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

@TigerYou have been a model of restraint in this thread. I stand in awe and admiration. 

@Tiger seconded

[TitanTiger 20,481]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're wrong. 

That's the problem with theists. They feel that they have to have those answers. So when they don't, they just make them up. 

Not that I necessarily adhere to his set of questions as THE questions (though they are good), but do you not deem these questions as worthy of any weight or importance?  I mean, if you answer honestly from a naturalistic perspective, you get something like this:

Where did we come from?  We don't really know.  We originated from a single celled organism and evolved from there, but how those building blocks for life came into existence in the first place, we don't have an answer for and perhaps never will.

Who are we?  Just another insignificant lifeform, of no inherent value or worth greater than that of any other.

Why are we here?  We're here as the result of a happenstance combination of time, energy, matter and chance.  That's a how question though.  There's no "why" in our framework.

How should we live?  If we're being honest, it depends on who you're talking to and who has the reins of power and the means to enforce it. 

Where are we going? If we don't destroy our species first, we're just all living and dying for millions of years into the future until our sun dies and kills us all anyway.  Unless we figure out a way to travel to another planet that can support life outside of our solar system before then.

 

Now perhaps you think those are satisfactory answers.  Or maybe they are unsatisfactory but you just think they're honest.  But either way, I don't think the fact that the answers you have to those questions amounts to a big shrug means they aren't important questions.

[triangletiger 1,599]

26 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're wrong. 

That's the problem with theists. They feel that they have to have those answers. So when they don't, they just make them up. 

Edit: I went a little hard there. I think I'm responding to a particular brand of arrogance that you might not have actually been displaying in your post. Apologies if I offended. 

No worries.  I'm not easily offended.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Now perhaps you think those are satisfactory answers.  Or maybe they are unsatisfactory but you just think they're honest.  But either way, I don't think the fact that the answers you have to those questions amounts to a big shrug means they aren't important questions.

They are absolutely worthwhile questions. What I objected to was the notion that we have to have answers (beyond legitimate, thoughtful, honest, ultimately inconclusive ones such as you provided). Re-reading @triangletiger's post, though, I might have misinterpreted. Regardless, I was more aggressive than was called for, and insulting to all theists, for which I will again apologize. I don't actually hold theists in low regard at all. I know several who are, without question, my intellectual superiors and who give my views all due respect and consideration.  

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

They are absolutely worthwhile questions. What I objected to was the notion that we have to have answers (beyond legitimate, thoughtful, honest, ultimately inconclusive ones such as you provided). Re-reading @triangletiger's post, though, I might have misinterpreted. Regardless, I was more aggressive than was called for, and insulting to all theists, for which I will again apologize. I don't actually hold theists in low regard at all. I know several who are, without question, my intellectual superiors and who give my views all due respect and consideration.  

Sometimes, arrogance in defending one's position is really just a mask for insecurity in one's position.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Sometimes, arrogance in defending one's position is really just a mask for insecurity in one's position.

Don't you dare make me go take a long hard look in the mirror. (Out of likes, btw.)

[TitanTiger 20,481]

At the risk of giving everyone whiplash, I am going to move this back to ATC.  Only because we have a few posters who were participating who don't have access to the Politics forum anymore.  Everyone breathe deeply, it'll be ok.