Tebow's pre-Wonderlic prayer request falls flat

[Scrumtrilescent]

If you have 4 apples and eat 3, how many are left?

[Carolina Husker]

He should have prayed for his Wonderlic score.

[Darth Biscuit]

He should have prayed for his Wonderlic score.

That's a whole other thread....

"How low would The Golden Calf of Bristol's score have been without prayer"

Prolly should go in the Tinderbox though...

[Samuel L. Jackson]

Oh.. I'm sorry... did I break your concentration?

To humor you, I'll continue the broken record responses...

Why is someone else's quote unacceptable to you? The presumption is that such a statement is an affront to your beliefs and should be abolished by banter or peer pressure or by force if necessary.

It is unacceptable on the basis that I try to discourage ignorance, and to equate (or actually hold to a higher regard) the teachings of someone who has a questionable existence to those who penned their own theories and teachings is the height of ignorance. Basically, it is the equivalent to someone claiming "The devil made me do it" and expecting a jury of peers to accept it.

While you may presume what you will, do not expect me to justify any of it.

I now ask you this as an excercise in your "faith vs. science" mindset. You mentioned earlier that a prayer in the face of cancer will not save you. How do you know that? Has there ever been such a thing as a "medical miracle"?

"Miracles" happen all the time and I believe their cause to be unknown... Things just happen, but to try and associate it with a God is nothing but defining something for lack of a better definition... Which is basically the foundation for all religions, in my opinion...

Of course, science is not allowed to make room for "faith" in its original philosophy, but in application you will see all manners of faith employed. Eugenics, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Vitamin C and "part of this complete breakfast" come to mind.

I'm sorry that you have a closed mind to such issues, but Global Warming and Cooling happens all the time... They take no "faith" to verify... I work around scientists every day, and some of which are religious would tell you that there is a difference in religious faith and scientific uncertainty...

But let's break it down even further. Perhaps "faith" actually has a place in science, but the politics of scientists would not allow for its recognition as an actual working phenomenon.

I guess here you are trying to equate all scientists as having interest in politics and, as such, not wanting to give credit to the unknown... From my experiences, this is so far from the truth it is borderline crazy... Again, the difference between them and the religious fundamentalists are that they actively seek the truth, while the fundamentalist accepts what he is told in his holy book as such...

Consider the placebo effect.... the absolute most demonstrated phenomenon in medical science. If you replace the word "placebo" with "faith" you have actually changed nothing in the actual understanding, realization, nor denial of its existence. In fact, quite the contrary. The placebo effect shows us that "if you believe it, then it is real."

I disagree with your assessment of the placebo effect... I think most of the research in that area is outdated, and I could actually equate religion as being a placebo... not in a good sense though...

Say people leap into every single decision with blind faith (they don't, so that right there should tell you enough about "true believers")... They can ruin their lives with out critically analyzing every single choice they make before they make it...

Religion/faith doesn't have to offer explanations to everything for everyone. In fact, such a mindset actually represent a tiny fraction in America today. What it offers is a means to provide comfort, guidance in moral dilemmas, and hope to where many need it.

I've said in the past that religion is a crutch... I'm sorry if I don't need it and someone else does, but it isn't my fault...

Like all things, there are those that would seek to exploit such a weakness of others as exemplified by your infamous televangelists of yesterday and today. Some even grow so close to their own faiths and have invested so much of their lives into their perceptions that the slightest challenge (real or perceived) is met with hostility, belittlement, contempt, and in some cases, violence. It was the preachers and priests of the day that ended up killing Jesus. Not because what Jesus taught was fundamentally false, but because his teachings challenged their presumptions, social standing, and power in their establised world.

Initially, I agreed with this part... But then you threw in the part about Jesus, which again, has no proof other than legend... Also, this doesn't take into account the numerous messiahs from around the world that existed before Jesus supposedly did, and had almos the exact same story...

If we can truly believe that we cannot know all the answers, then our responses cannot reflect the contrary. You are obviously intelligent and have invested a lot of time in your world view. I would merely ask that you feed your nature to play devil's advocate and apply it to your own paradigm.

I don't have all the answers, but I have enough evidence, or lack thereof, to say that I know how to respond in philosophical debate...

I'll shift my pardigm all the time... It is a part of the learning curve... and it is also a part I wish those on the other side of the argument would learn to do...

[Kognan]

If you have 4 apples and eat 3, how many are left?

What if you dont like apples?

[Mr. Scot]

I get the feeling Mr. Scot don't like me no more... lol

I explained that it didn't matter to me what the hell they did... I just find it humorous and hypocritical... a facade...

In reality, I don't give a f**k about it though... More power to them... Smitty is one of my favorite Panthers of all time, and he always points to the sky... If he wanted to debate religion, I'd debate it with him too... and I'd use the same tactics I use here...

If you are passionate about something and use strong enough rhetoric, the opposition is more likely to eventually hear your argument and appreciate your point of view... Ask any preacher that does a really good job with his sermon and he will agree...

I have no problem with you. I just disagree.

Any notion that we're going to resolve religious issues and theological differences in this format, on this topic, is ridiculous. I'm not about to even try that. My only point is that expressions of belief, whether they be in line with my ideas or not, don't bother me. I see little reason why they should bother much of anyone in a society where free expression is a basic right.

And just to restate, in all likelihood the story that's the topic of this thread is not true. Regardless, I think The Golden Calf of Bristol has the kind of character any coach would want (hard worker, good teammate, accountable, etc) and is the kind of guy that would make anyones a great teammate.

I don't want him on the Panthers though - at least not as a QB - purely for football reasons.

[CharlotteBeer.com]

Any notion that we're going to resolve religious issues and theological differences in this format, on this topic, is ridiculous.

This may be the wisest thing written in this thread.

These "debates" are nothing more than each person trying their damndest to prove their own point. There's really no genuine desire to see the other person's side -- it's all about trying to prove yourself right and the other person wrong.

So goes the internet these days.

[Guild]

you display arrogance in declaring that no such evidence exists, ignorance in believing that the sum total of such evidence could fit in a message board post, and absurdity in expecting me to try.

Hmmm

You could've provided one small piece of evidence to illustrate your point. I guess insulting someone else is the more entertaining thing to do though.

To bad your mental deficiency prevented you from providing a single scrap of anything interesting that could be construed as evidence for your ridiculous, arrogant, ignorant, absurd point. You come across as one of the better posters on the board most of the time I genuinely expected you to actually have an argument for it.

Love ya though.

[Guild]

This may be the wisest thing written in this thread.

These "debates" are nothing more than each person trying their damndest to prove their own point. There's really no genuine desire to see the other person's side -- it's all about trying to prove yourself right and the other person wrong.

So goes the internet these days.

Waaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiittttt a second here.

You mean we are actually supposed to do some sort of debate through which there may be a method of difference resolution?

I thought we were just supposed to get lulz in whatever way we felt like.

[PhillyB]

Hmmm

You could've provided one small piece of evidence to illustrate your point. I guess insulting someone else is the more entertaining thing to do though.

oh posh, i meant no actual insult to you as a person, simply your overconfident statement.

To bad your mental deficiency prevented you from providing a single scrap of anything interesting that could be construed as evidence for your ridiculous, arrogant, ignorant, absurd point.

the problem with this is that thousands of people have written thousands of books and millions of pages on these topics that i couldn't come close to recreating sufficiently on this board without spending scores of hours (and the site's entire bandwidth.) I will try to make a (very) basic overview of these arguments:

1) The Ontological Argument: an argument based on abstract reasoning that suggests gods existence is implied by the very concept of god.

2) The Cosmological Argument: suggests primarily that the past is finite and that a beginning implies a cause, which implies a causer, etc

3) Pascal's Wager: argument from a personal-advantage standpoint, not really an argument for the existence of a god but rather a suggestion that youve got more to lose by not believing in a god than by believing in one. i included this just cause pascal is the man. if you've never read Pensees check it out, its brilliant

4) Religious Experience: G.K. Chesterton coined the term "democracy of the dead" to include every person who's ever lived who can attest to some transcendental experience. to insist that no transcendental being exists is to throw the testimony of trillions of prior witnesses out the window without due cause

5) The Teleological Argument: suggests that order in the universe implies a purpose. This is usually the beginning point of scientific arguments, which can range from discussions of the big bang and how that relates theologically (the implication of a causer that a cause indicates: the cosmological argument is intertwined here.) Arguments about the precision placement of the earth in the universe for life to survive, depthy research of the compatibility of quark theory and deism, etc

Forgive the atrociously disjointed nature of my response - there is a host of material out there and this is my clumsy attempt to condense it into several points. Some names to look up if you're interested in researching the matter further:

John Polkinghorne

Søren Kierkegaard

Blaise Pascal

lee strobel

Love ya though.

:cheers2:

[uncpanther]

It seems that SLJ has some issues with God that need to be resolved. If he didn't he would waste his time typing on a forum about how peoples beliefs are hilarious. The man Jesus Christ has had a profound impact that cannot be denied. If you do not believe that he existed there are historically references (other than the BIBLE) that verify he did exist. Weather or not you believe everything else is up to you.

Weather it happened or not The Golden Calf of Bristol had the right to ask for a prayer as much as the next guy has a right for his comment. Although I will say that the comment was not needed and he could have been the better man and ignored the statement and go on with his business. Unfortunately that is the way young people are brought up now a days to disrespect others and make fun of people.

I am a Christian and I have the right to worship as much as you have to right to not so don't judge me about how I worship and I wont judge you about how you do not.

[PantherDude]

I see it as my duty to try and wake people the f**k up to their own absurd belief system.... sorry...

Hmm.....that sound a lot like those Christians that try to shove their beliefs down other throats. Guess you're no different than them after all. You really love to take your own medicines.

Freddie Mitchell's hands weren't all that tangible.

Everything you say here is based in your belief system, which sounds like it doesn't have a whole lot of respect for the beliefs of others. On the one hand, you mock the beliefs of others, then disparage Christians for what you perceive as looking down on the beliefs of others. This doesn't strike you as a tad hypocritical?

And I seriously doubt anyone else who's posted here would have an issue with a Muslim praying. Heck, the Panthers already had a Muslim player, and I don't recall anyone ever making an issue of it.

QFT. And we don't have a Muslim player on the team if you're refering to Moose. His dad converted to Islam when Moose was 2 & gave him the Muslim name, despite Moose's Christian beliefs.

Science, Mathematics, and other fundamentals of true philosophy are the complete opposite, and encourage people to learn things on their own...

No, they encourage people to not believe in a God like themselves. They're just being clever with that "learn on your own" excuses.

I have made no personal attacks

BS. If that is true, what you call this in bold, huh? Especially when there are many here who believe the Bible as a truth, whom you call "idiot".

If you can accept the Bible as literal truth and give it profound influence on human progress, you are an idiot

The difference in Science and religion, which you fail miserably at understanding apparently, is that Science doesn't claim to have all the answers

Many claim sciences does have all the answers. They claim it how they have proof God doesn't exist, when science can't answer something like that. One that been around for years before those who claim God isn't real were even born.

It sickens me to know that people, on a daily basis, humble themselves to some sort of supernatural being that is higher than themself... Do you not see the constant belittlement of your own successes that this mindset brings?

And it sickens me some militant atheists make big deal about people's belief & bash them for believing in it when they said we shouldn't bash other for not sharing our beliefs. That make many of them as hypocrite asshat.

Not only that, but religion has been a driving factor to some of the worst events in human history...

Oh really?? Then explain me about Stalin. He is a murderer & committed many act of terror. And guess what? He is an atheist. His partner Vladmir Lenin is as well. Don't try to act like only religions cause some of the worst events in human history when non-religions are guilty of that as well.

Therefore, I feel it is my duty to guide people down the paths that I myself have traveled, and steer them away from primitive thought and blind faith... This is the opposite of what religion teaches...

I don't need you to tell me how to live my damn life & try to make me follow your path. I'll believe what in my heart, not my head. You whine & complain that religious people shove their beliefs down other people's throat, but you're doing the same thing on the other side right there. Don't be a hypocrite. :mad5:

[CharlotteBeer.com]

3) Pascal's Wager: argument from a personal-advantage standpoint, not really an argument for the existence of a god but rather a suggestion that youve got more to lose by not believing in a god than by believing in one. i included this just cause pascal is the man. if you've never read Pensees check it out, its brilliant.

I hate the idea of Pascal's wager. Now granted, I only know it vaguely and haven't read his other works, but I could never get behind the idea that God favors a smart gambler. I understand what he's saying, but is that really believing? And more than this, is calculated belief enough to achieve the salvation that the wager seeks?

[Mr. Scot]

And we don't have a Muslim player on the team if you're refering to Moose. His dad converted to Islam when Moose was 2 & gave him the Muslim name, despite Moose's Christian beliefs.

The Muslim player I was referring to was Willie Green.

(I know; a Muslim named Willie Green and a Christian named Muhsin Muhammad; go figure)