VTTW Board Index

douche since leaving UT, I still hate to see him injured. Guess he has some type of serious groin injury.

Must have gotten something in his va-ja-ja!

Could just be karma for the serious lies he's been telling? He's thrown a lot of people under the bus to advance his own personal agenda.

Somehow, I doubt the crowds at Neyland will be chanting his name like they did with Eric Berry last year.

Still waiting on Troop to bring him some tacos? 

He just would've fumbled them anyway. :tongue:

Only if it counted.

Linked without comment:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god

Same ol' Arian. Throwing his college coach, school and teammates under the bus, while feeding us ridiculous claims. Does anyone really believe that his new teammates approach him and literally ask him, "I hear you're different?" Lol. I encounter atheists every day. There are atheists on this forum, I suspect. I've never had the desire to look at them in bewilderment, and I've never seen the ones I know personally treated with bewilderment -- and I live in one of the most deeply religious and simultaneously backwards communities in Tennessee.

I don't forgive Arian for the shizzle he's thrown at Tennessee over the last few years, but that was a fantastic article.

Arian is "different" though. I don't know if that comment was about his atheism or his other oddities-- of which there are many. Also, I think "bewildered" is actually a pretty accurate characterization of what my family thinks of my atheism. They're not mad at me and they don't disown me but they don't understand how this has "happened to me" at all. They're all quite devout.

I didn't catch him throwing anyone under the bus there, btw . . . anybody with his beliefs would have felt the same way under those circumstances, and it's an important part of the story that article tells. That's not even a weird Arian thing.

Because the racial makeup of the churches the team attended has so much to do with the rest of the article...

Well that part was typical Arian, I suppose. I didn't really consider that detail very important, but obviously it made an impact on Arian.

What % of the team was black, I wonder? Did his teammates talk about that issue? It didn't fit with the rest of the article but it does raise an interesting question.

Arian has always been a bit different.

I suspected he was an atheist more than 3 years ago. I'm atheist myself so I guess it takes one to know one.

Arian can say what he wants about UT, if he doesn't care that he has alienated the UT fan base against him. That's just cause and effect.

I've been atheist since I was in high school. I actually look at it as an "un-happening". I look at religion as something that "happens" to people.

 

Don't care what he believes, or doesn't believe as the case may be.  Foster is an attention whore.  Plainly and simply. 

I think you're right, he likes attention. He will have to deal with the effects of that.

Maybe its God trying to get his attention since he came out and professed himself a devout Atheist.

How sad? Not to believe in anything. Good luck with that atheists. I hope it works for you for all eternity. Seriously.

Don't be sad. I live a very happy life - lots happier than many folks, and I consider myself very lucky. I just don't believe in the existence of God, as described by the various religions of the world. I never have. You either believe or you don't. I certainly don't believe we are here for all of eternity either.

Seriously? How do you explain bad things happening every day to believers then? You think bad things happen only to atheists? LOL

There is no such thing as a "devout" atheist. Atheism isn't a religion, or belief. It's simply a lack of belief in God. That's it. No book, no church, no temple, no 10 commandments.

There are lots of Old Testament writings about how God did things to grab someone's attention, but those days are long past. I don't believe God punishes non-believers or believers who are living outside his will. A few years ago, my church named a pastor who constantly preached that Christians who didn't live up to a certain standard were risking the wrath of God. He would often throw in threats that were meant to scare his parishioners, about how "it might not be you; it might be your kids who pay the price." I finally became so disgusted that I left the church. I'm a Christian who firmly believes in the wrath of God, but I don't think it's going to be manifested in this life here on earth. Foster's injury is just an unfortunate coincidence for him. If bad things happened to non-believers, there are a lot of people in our society who wouldn't be as wealthy, healthy or successful as they are.

The  so called "Wrath of God" happens every day in the Universe. Stars die, planets die, and likely - lives are lost on grand scales all over the universe, all the time. It's the nature of the universe - nothing lasts for ever. Not even the Universe will. The earth? Maybe significant to us. Not significant in the grand scheme of things - we're all just here for a really short time, enjoy life and do some good, have empathy for living things, do some good. That's my motto and I try to live it.

I hear you, 'Nut, but let me add this to your philosophy:

BUCK FAMA!!!  :bird: :bird: :bird:

Why project a human concept on to stars and planets?  They don't "die", as they are never "alive" to begin with (well...at least not so far as we currently know, lol).  They simply change form in the cycle of the universe.

As for life, given that the universe (per the current theories) is about 14 billion years old (don't worry, this number will change again, but that's what it is today), and technological innovation on Earth has been what it is the last 100 years, what are the odds that any life out there is so advanced that (as Arthur C. Clarke said) their technology is "indistinguishable from magic?".

I have no doubt that we are a small part of a larger whole....not just physically in the sense of stars and planets....but as a form of life...we are part of a much greater whole.

Life IMO is common in the universe and a natural part of it.  As such, it stands to reason that there is life far, far in advance of us.  I think religion is pretty much saying that.  That we are part of an order of life, that there is an order to life, and this is true everywhere.

Now that doesn't address the chicken and egg question.  What came first, the universe or a "Creator"?  But to me, if there was life as early as 13 billion years ago and it continued to advance, it must be incredibly advanced.  So along those lines, it's not a reach to believe that the universe is designed and created by some highly superior entity.

It's funny, Adrian prides himself on being "open minded", but the fact is a logical and scientific case can be made for "God" or whatever you want to call it.  Some atheist scientists just have a huge bias that they are unaware of, while ironically considering themselves more "open minded" than theologians they dismiss as superstitious without thinking about it too much.

Even Richard Dawkins stated he thought life on Earth could have been seeded by "highly advanced aliens".  Which IMO is a baby step in the direction of truth, but I give him credit for getting that far.   :biggrin:

That should be the philosophy of anyone with a brain

a logical and and scientific case can't be made for God, Bandit. Not God as defined by the religions of the world anyway.  You can say that we have so many things in the Universe which we can't explain, but most people just say "God did it". No evidence - It's about faith. You need faith to believe in God - and faith isn't about logic and proof. By the way I don't think a person needs religion to believe in God either. I think religion is a man-made idea to control the masses.

Dying isn't a human concept. We're made of the same stuff as the earth. The earth will die. We're just here, living. So what?
I agree there's probably tons of life, even intelligent life out there - all a part of the universe, and all a part of cause and effect. Cause and effect is the truth of the universe, and if you're looking for a "force" that created life - look no further than Gravity, without which the universe would never have expanded into what it is.

Logical scientist: "Where did the universe come from?"
Faithful: "God made it"
Logical scientist: "Where did God come from?"
Faithful: "You can't ask that - it's blasphemous"
Logical scientist: "Then our conversation is over.  Good day"

Football season starts in less than 4 weeks...and we're really going here again?  :banghead:

So what?  It's interesting to some of us.

Religion or your straw man of religion?  Having asked that question, I acknowledge that many have a simple version of God which is entirely faith based.  But I am saying that God can be (and is IMO) quite complex and logical and can naturally fit into the universe.  I think some critics of the concept of God simply lack the imagination and open mindedness to see this.

As for your point on "dying", here we have a fundamental disconnect.  Let me ask you this...do you make a distinction between life and non-life?  If the answer is "no", then I am really interested in why you think that.  And let me acknowledge in advance that "life" is not easy to define with words (and yet its something fairly obvious to an observer).

You don't have to if you don't want to.

Which God, bandit? Allah ? Vishnu? Jesus? Thor? Athena? Durga?

The problem with the concept of "God" is that it is defined by the religion you happen to be indoctrinated into. To me it's just a word. If you want to say that "God" is simply the combination of forces that drives the universe and is highly complex, too complex to define fully, I can see that.  I think we place too much value on us - everything is about us - when in fact evolution teaches us that we're simply a creature that continues to evolve, like the rest of the creatures on Earth, and probably the universe.

The Universe is connected by many things. We don't comprehend most of it. That doesn't mean "God did it". That part is made up...by humans.

Now on your question on life. I do think there is a difference between life, which includes consciousness -  and inanimate objects. But that doesn't mean we're not all connected. All life comes from the stars. We're made up of the elements that are found on earth, and abundant in most of the universe. I don't think humans are that important - we do understand more than other animals and we are the only species on Earth that realizes where we are in the universe. But so what? I often hear people say that when we are born we come into the world, and then when we die we leave the world. I think it's the other way around. We come out of the world when we are born, and we go back in when we die. That's it though. We don't come back and I don't believe in heaven/hell.

I do appreciate your view on God, and I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they believe.
 

True enough. "God did it and to question that is blasphemous". Keeps people in line.

I'm sitting this discussion out but I did want to acknowledge this comment. I really like that. That way of thinking has had a profound impact on the way I approach life and death. When I die I my atoms will become soil and trees and streams and air and rain and worms and birds . . . I think that is a beautiful thought.

I like that, too.  Certainly consistent with physical reality.

I think both religion and science have the same problem - How did it all start?  Neither can prove anything when it comes to how things really got going.  One relies on faith and one relies on science/theory - I'm ok with both.   :dude:

Faithful: "Where did the universe come from?"
Scientist: "The Big Bang"
Faithful: "Where did the Big Bang come from?"
Scientist: "You can't ask that - it's settled science"
Faithful: "Then our conversation is over.  Good day"

Actual answer: "That's a great question - how can we find out?"

...and therein lies the difference.

Both sides of the issue can answer that the same way (and many on both sides have been "trying to find out" for millennia).  We obviously differ in the way we view this topic.  I believe that neither science nor religion will ever be able to answer that question, while you seem to believe that science can somehow determine how something came from nothing (or explain how something has always been).

My feeling on religion is  - if you think you have it figured out, you're wrong (that goes for church "leaders" all the way down to the layman).  My feeling on science is - if you think science can explain everything the universe has to offer, you're wrong (that goes for people like Hawking down to grade school science teachers).

Unlike many on either side of the issue, I don't believe that belief in religion and being true to science are mutually exclusive.

Hey, feel free. I'm certainly not a board cop so who am I to tell anyone what to discuss? I just think it's a waste of time when we could be talking football. But, who knows, I may jump in with both feet before all is said and done.

Incorrect. A scientist will never say you can't ask that. He will tell you that we are learning every day and to always ask questions. That is the difference

Except for the religious fanatics of the Global Warming cult.

Incorrect.  A rational scientist would never say you can't ask that.  Not all scientists are rational, especially when challenged.  Keep in mind, they're still human.  They may think they are being rational and purely relying on science, but they have the same human frailties as anyone else.  Now, substitute "believer" and "beliefs" for "scientists" and "science" and the same holds true.  Both can be extremely dogmatic and inflexible.  I see no difference.

To bring this back to sports, the existence of God is like the number of bama championships; can't be proved or disproved, and there are wackos on both sides of the debate.  :biggrin:

Well, why not?  :biggrin:

I strongly disagree with the assertion that Christians rely on blind faith -- a mentality of "do not question, because it just is the way it is." Obviously faith is the very core of Christianity. But that doesn't mean that faith has to be blind.

Quite to the contrary. There are a lot of different ways to find concrete evidence behind the age-old question, "Is there a God?" There may not be a smoking gun that can positively, definitely prove the existence of a divine presence for non-believers, but certainly there's enough circumstantial evidence for probable cause. For starters, there are the very questions that science have thus far been unable to provide an answer for regarding the origin of life. Darwin's theory of common descent can explain physical life. Lemaître's Big Bang Theory can explain the universe that's inhabited by that life. But how do you explain the existence of the particles that would eventually create the "big bang"? It's easy to say, "Well just because science can't prove how it started doesn't mean God is real." Of course not. But if you trace the origins of this whole grand scheme we call existence far enough back, you will eventually arrive at a point where something had to come from nothing. And something doesn't come from nothing unless someone or something created it. I can't really wrap my mind around the idea of the omnipresence of God -- that he just always was. But neither can I wrap my mind around the idea of something coming from nothing. And if something came from nothing, why not a divine presence? And if it was a divine presence, why not the God my faith is placed in? Sure, there are a lot of different gods that are worshiped by people of different faiths. But let's not forget that most of the world's foremost religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- all worship the same god, even if they fundamentally differ on just about everything else.

But that isn't the real point of my post. Nor is the scientific and physical evidence that points to the existence of a divine god. Instead, it's the simplicity of the historical record. I say simple, because it really is: We know, from the secular historical record as well as the religious historical record, that a man named Jesus lived ~2,000 years ago and claimed to be God in the flesh. No secular historian who is considered relevant has ever offered evidence to dispute this. The actual existence of Jesus cannot be ignored. If Jesus was who he claimed to be, God is real. If he wasn't, God isn't.

We know, from secular and religious historical texts, that Jesus developed quite a following but that he also generated a lot of hatred, particularly among followers of Judaism, and we know he was eventually executed. Even if the death of Jesus was the end of him, he was one of the greatest and most influential teachers mankind has ever known. But if the death was the end of him, it would shatter the very tenements of Christianity. What, then, became of Jesus's body? After all, the only point where secular history and religious history dissent is what became of Jesus after his death. The facts of his life, his ministry claiming to be the son of God, his arrest and his execution, none of those things are disputed.

So what became of his body? Was it, as Rome's top brass claimed, removed from the tomb and hidden by his followers in a move to fulfill his predictions and protect his legacy? That would be the easiest way to explain it all away, but what about those who knew Jesus personally who went to their grave proclaiming him as God? That's where things get particularly interesting. Many of the disciples who were Jesus's closest followers and confidants were executed because they refused to renounce him, and several of them died very cruel deaths. None of them renounced him. Those simple acts of defiance to the Roman Empire speak volumes. As has been written, most of us would have little problem living for a lie, but how many of us would be willing to die for a lie? These were the men who were there when Jesus died, and they were the ones who claimed that he came back to life three days later, who claimed to have seen him after his resurrection and who claimed to have seen him ascend into the sky. If it was all a lie, if they had to steal Jesus's body from the tomb and hide it in order to protect Jesus's legacy, would they really have been willing to die, often cruelly, to protect that lie? I don't know about you all, but I have several friends I think I would be willing to give my life for. (I say "think," because it's easy to talk a big game until you're actually staring adversity in the face.) But I don't have any dead friends I would be willing to give my life for. And I guarantee you I wouldn't give my life to protect something I knew to be a lie about one of my friends, whether they're dead or alive. If those men had seen that Jesus didn't arise from the dead, as he had promised them he would, would they really have faced torturers and executers without crumbling? Not even one of them? Their deaths are different from the many other early Christians who were martyred over the years (and, actually, are still being executed for their faith even today). Those Christians were and are being killed because they refuse to renounce their faith. And that's admirable, but different, because they never saw the man named Jesus in the flesh. The early disciples saw him. They walked with him. They knew his most closely-held secrets. And they died, some by the sword, some by crucifixion, and some naturally, ALL claiming that Jesus's execution wasn't the end of him. That's remarkable and, in my opinion, the greatest physical proof of God's existence.

Don't get me wrong; I don't need all that to prop up my faith. Like everyone else who claims to be a "born-again child of God," I can say without hesitation that God revealed himself to me years ago. As a Calvanist Christian, I firmly believe that God finds us, not the other way around. And once that happens, he manifests himself in us. It's an emotional, spiritual experience that most people will never understand and that a growing number choose to mock or belittle, and that's okay. Religious beliefs are a very personal thing and I'm okay with others not sharing my beliefs.

But for non-believers who are questioning the existence of God, I think all of the above is relevant. If you can study the writings of Pontius Pilate to Caesar Tiberius, and all the other secular accounts of Jesus's life, and come away 100% convinced that God is just some fairy tale, some "sky daddy," that's your right. I don't think I could. But that's just me.

To make a bad pun, in theory a scientist will tell you that but many of them are quite close minded and just as biased as any religious person.

For instance, I think the evidence for the big bang theory is quite weak.  A leading reason that scientists are searching for the 95% of matter that is "missing" or "dark" (derisive snort goes here) is not so much that observational evidence calls for it but because it saves a tenet of the early big bang theory.  That is, the big bang theory falls apart unless early in the development of the universe there was a lot more matter that cannot be seen currently or is hard to detect.

Scientists like to give the impression (well some of them) that the "big bang theory" (calling it one name is a bit misleading as there are many variants) is established fact, on par with say, the ability to measure the atomic weight of hyrdrogen.

And yet...they are looking for 95% of the 'missing matter' in order to salvage it!  It's downright laughable.   :dielaughing: :dielaughing:
,
The thing about it is, Neal Tyson DeGrasse, who is an open atheist and not shy about attacking "intelligent design" proponents recently did an 11 show remake of Cosmos, the classic science show by Sagan.  In the last show, DeGrasse discusses the "dark matter" problem and finally gets around to admitting they really don't know what's going on and have a lot of work to do.

I'd like to see that attitude and admission from scientists a lot more frequently, frankly.