Since when did God start controlling the outcome of boxing matches

robindch wrote: »

The central conceit behind prayer - that the deity will willingly choose to suspend the usual operation of the universe to benefit somebody or something - really brings arrogance to a whole new level, particularly when some poor sap must lose something in order for the alleged beneficiary to receive it.

Though that said, we had a situation with Popette recently in which she had decided to achieve some family purpose, not by leaving her house and interacting with the wider family, but instead, by staying at home and praying. In the circumstances, let me say that the power of prayer is a wonderful thing.

First Up wrote: »

I am encouraging discussion. You want to stifle it.

Yes that's it. I want to stifle all discussion. You have me rumbled. Damn !!

How do you stifle discussion on a discussion board anyway

Come to think of it, how do you encourage it

First Up wrote: »

I suppose that would depend on the explanation provided but one step at a time.

People are free to believe whatever they want but that doesn't override reality.

Unless you can explain scientifically why a god doesn't exist then you can't really say it doesn't exist.

Describing weather, earthquakes etc as acts of God is patently bollócks you can't say their god doesn't exist no more than they can say it does.

There is a line where belief starts to impinge upon others and thats not a line that should be crossed but if someone has faith and it helps them, I don't really know why anyone finds that so objectionable.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Unless you can explain scientifically why a god doesn't exist then you can't really say it doesn't exist.

Describing weather, earthquakes etc as acts of God is patently bollócks you can't say their god doesn't exist no more than they can say it does.

There is a line where belief starts to impinge upon others and thats not a line that should be crossed but if someone has faith and it helps them, I don't really know why anyone finds that so objectionable.

I don't quite get your point, it is impossible to prove the non existence of anything.

I've always found it amusing the way some people thank god for helping them win, but you never hear anyone thank god for making their opponent loose. It's the same thing of course but it's just a facet of the religious mindset that god always does good. Thank you god for giving me that extra strength, not thank you god for negating the 4 years of torturous training my (less worthy) opponent has also put in.

Boardz Fiend wrote: »

So God decides who wins at the Olympics? Is it based on who trains hardest, or who prays the hardest. I may get slated here for knocking the nations sweetheart but thats one whopper delusion Katie Taylor is under!
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/sport/katie-taylors-post-fight-interview-is-heartbreaking-to-watch-749845.html

In your opinion..... In her opinion there is a God, the only difference is that she wouldn't slate or belittle you for your lack of belief in the same way that you chose to belittle her belief.

First Up wrote: »

It is still legitimate to ask people of such belief how they reconcile it with reality.

It might be unfair to expect Katie to be able to, but it is notable that those defending "faith" here can't do it either.

That's the old chestnut.....but science can't conclusively prove how we all came into being either.

I'm not religious by any means but I do find it fascinating that throughout the centuries, all over the planet, various people, tribes and remote villages etc honour Gods of various hues. Doesn't matter if it's 'our' God, a Buddha, a rock or Wagga Wagga Murphy - the fact remains that these people all adore a 'superior being' without any established religion forcing it down their throats.

BTW I also find it fascinating that this forum spends more time talking about the Catholic church and religion that any other forum on Boards

Alf Veedersane wrote:

She said she thought she won rounds 1, 3 and 4. So while you or I might say "I haven't a f**king clue why I didn't win. I won 3 rounds out of 4", she sought an explanation through the only route that made any sense to her.

So what next - train harder or pray harder?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There is a line where belief starts to impinge upon others and thats not a line that should be crossed but if someone has faith and it helps them, I don't really know why anyone finds that so objectionable.

Well here in Ireland we are living in a nation where the line has been crossed. So until the Catholics move back from the line there is no "live and let live" to partake in.

magicbastarder wrote: »

apart from the fact that we live in a western democracy where 92% of national schools are legally able to refuse admission to 5 year olds based on their religion (or lack thereof).

That definitely needs to change. It's more hypocrisy.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But you can't ever prove that ANY belief is wrong. Where do you draw the line?

I'd venture it's very rare that you'll find yourself in a position where you have to disabuse someone of the notion that their god exists so you don't really have to go about proving anything to anyone.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

For example your child believes the boogey man is hiding under the bed - you can't actually prove he isn't, but that doesn't mean you should just leave them believe he is, even though it doesn't effect you one way or the other. (It's a stupid example I know, but it's just to illustrate the point)
You could argue that grown adults believing things that just aren't true (for whatever reason) can never be truly benign.

You can look under the bed with them and show them there is nothing there.

So you think that anyone with any religious belief can never be truly benign? Behave.