I am an atheist and have no problem with fighters mentioning Christ/God.

[Darkeonz]

I understand that and I do I also acknowledge human error but I do my best to interpret it and it makes sense

The earliest text is written 40 years after jesus supposely lived. But you can believe what you want. But take it all with gran of salt

 

[Floki]

Well duh. It's OK. I'm not saying he can't do it.

It's just silly from an atheist point of view. He might as well be saying, "I'd like to thank the invisible leprochauns who sing to me every morning before the gym. Couldn't have done it without you."

Can't help but roll my eyes and be less of a fan due to inability to relate.

You can't relate but I bet you can relate to fear, fear makes people believe in singing leprechauns and that we are all going to happy leprechaun land when we die when in fact we will cease to exist and experience the void of nothingness!!!

 

[skombolis]

You don't read very well. I expressed no personal offense. I asked about whether others would likely take offense at an atheist thanking the lack of there being a God, after a victory. And you conspicuously did not answer that question.

I know what you asked and why. It was obvious. You gave an inverse scenario where basically someone who is atheist for some reason makes the point that they do not believe God exist while listing their thanks after a fight and asked would religious people be offended by it. It was a clear indicator of how you as an atheist feel about a religious person giving thanks to God. I really don't have time to deal with people who aren't honest enough to stand behind what they post and there is little I have seen from you in the past to make me think any exchange has potential. But for the sake of expediency I will answer again but in a way that is easier for you to follow.

No it wouldn't offend me, I would feel sad for the person that they were doing something so pathetic in an attempt to "get back" at people who did nothing to them and was thanking someone close to them the same as they would a family member or friend. It had nothing to do with you and was no commentary on your beliefs or lack thereof. I would also hope that person grew up in the near future instead of walking around with a chip on their shoulder looking to manufacturer ways to be offended. Life will legitimately offend you enough times on its own, no need to create situations to get angry about.

 

[skombolis]

How remarkable that you seem to think you have omniscience such that you can evaluate all Christians' religious beliefs to the point that you can tell us "nobody thinks that".

And on top of that audacity, you are wrong.

This was made very blatantly obvious by a TV special promoting the Mayweather vs. Guerrero boxing match. That TV special actually showed, on camera, a religious leader promising Guerrero victory against Mayweather if Guerrero would fully embrace Christian righteousness. And later, walking to the ring for the fight, Guererro was doing Christian display to the max. It must've been a shock to him when the promise wasn't fulfilled and he lost.

Watch episode 3, entitled "The Bible Thumper", of TUF Nations for another example blatantly showing that you are wrong about what people think.

Maybe just listen to what he says

He says "All things are possible through Christ who strengthens me"

He also said the loss wasn't going to be a setback and he was going to keep working and keep getting better


So he wouldn't think Christ fixes fights for him since he just lost and he certainly wouldn't think he still needs to train if Christ is fixing fights.

I never said you couldn't find an example of someone who believes Christ preordains the outcome of everything including sporting events. You were referring to what Ben was saying or people who make similar statements. And people who thank Christ (especially win or lose) certainly aren't claiming he fixes fights. And the rest is you just being purposely obtuse. Or do you think when they continue on and thank their trainers and friends and family they are saying they fixed the fights? Seriously, try to have an honest conversation instead of working so hard at the opposite.

 

[Better Every Day]

I know what you asked and why. It was obvious. You gave an inverse scenario where basically someone who is atheist for some reason makes the point that they do not believe God exist while listing their thanks after a fight and asked would religious people be offended by it. It was a clear indicator of how you as an atheist feel about a religious person giving thanks to God. I really don't have time to deal with people who aren't honest enough to stand behind what they post and there is little I have seen from you in the past to make me think any exchange has potential. But for the sake of expediency I will answer again but in a way that is easier for you to follow.

No it wouldn't offend me, I would feel sad for the person that they were doing something so pathetic in an attempt to "get back" at people who did nothing to them and was thanking someone close to them the same as they would a family member or friend. It had nothing to do with you and was no commentary on your beliefs or lack thereof. I would also hope that person grew up in the near future instead of walking around with a chip on their shoulder looking to manufacturer ways to be offended. Life will legitimately offend you enough times on its own, need need to create situations to get angry about.

You are really extraordinarily pompous, thinking that you can read people's minds when, in fact, all you are doing is stupidly assuming that the only scenario that happens to occur to you MUST BE an accurate representation of what other people are thinking. Stick to paying attention to what people actually write and you might have a chance at understanding something.

My point actually was that there is a double standard by which atheists are expected not to use such victory moments to promote their beliefs, and that--as you should know, and probably DO know but are too dishonest to admit--it would cause quite a stir if they did.

And you illustrate your demeaning part in that double-standard by saying that an atheist's profession of his own beleifs would be "pathetic", while not thinking that is the case at all when a Christian does the same thing. You are the hateful bigot, sir, not me.

Some people may indeed be just thanking God the same way they would thank a supportive family member, but you are a liar and a scoundrel if you try to claim that that is all that is going on in many cases. Some people certainly do pray that God will give them victory, and some people see themselves as using their fame to be missionary-like role-models. We know this is true because people at times come right out and tell us that's what they are doing (so spare us your b.s. to the contrary). And they know they can do it without social outrage in response. But if an atheist wanted to use the same fame in victory to set themselves forward as a missionary-like role-model for atheism, you know damn well there would be a lot of shit dumped on him by many in society. And I'd bet you'd be dumping that shit on him as well. THAT is the double-standard found in the U.S. and many other places, though perhaps not in Europe. Je suis Charlie.

And don't try your silly condescension about "I will answer again but in a way that is easier for you to follow." The mental white belt in this conversation is CLEARLY you.

 

[skombolis]

You are really extraordinarily pompous, thinking that you can read people's minds when, in fact, all you are doing is stupidly assuming that the only scenario that happens to occur to you MUST BE an accurate representation of what other people are thinking. Stick to paying attention to what people actually write and you might have a chance at understanding something.

My point actually was that there is a double standard by which atheists are expected not to use such victory moments to promote their beliefs, and that--as you should know, and probably DO know but are too dishonest to admit--it would cause quite a stir if they did.

And you illustrate your demeaning part in that double-standard by saying that an atheist's profession of his own beleifs would be "pathetic", while not thinking that is the case at all when a Christian does the same thing. You are the hateful bigot, sir, not me.

Some people may indeed be just thanking God the same way they would thank a supportive family member, but you are a liar and a scoundrel if you try to claim that that is all that is going on in many cases. Some people certainly do pray that God will give them victory, and some people see themselves as using their fame to be missionary-like role-models. We know this is true because people at times come right out and tell us that's what they are doing (so spare us your b.s. to the contrary). And they know they can do it without social outrage in response. But if an atheist wanted to use the same fame in victory to set themselves forward as a missionary-like role-model for atheism, you know damn well there would be a lot of shit dumped on him by many in society. And I'd bet you'd be dumping that shit on him as well. THAT is the double-standard found in the U.S. and many other places, though perhaps not in Europe. Je suis Charlie.

And don't try your silly condescension about "I will answer again but in a way that is easier for you to follow." The mental white belt in this conversation is CLEARLY you.

How anyone could take from my post that I was calling someone pathetic for being atheist is hard to take seriously. What I said would be pathetic is if someone used the opportunity to thank people as an excuse to take a shot at what other people believe or don't believe. Someone thanking God is not a commentary on people who don't believe. You know what, you are so dishonest that I am simply going to copy and paste what you wrote in an edit and stop talking to you. On top of being dishonest, you clearly love to play the victim card and see insults at your way of life that don't exist.

Edit: THIS is the example you gave which clearly is not someone simply giving thanks but someone trying to start a fight...

"I'm glad there really isn't a God, so these fighters expecting God's assistance can be beaten up just like anybody else"? Would that be rude? Or is only praising God in the octagon appropriate?"


...and it shows how pathetic it is that you see that as the atheist equivalent of a believer thanking God. Grow the fuck up. And if I act condescending to you it is because i don't respect people who aren't honest yet demand to be answered seriously.

 

[toe rag]

I'm pretty sure stalin, mao zedong, pol pot, and most likely hitler have scratched the surface already.

That's as illogical as trying to tie their acts to the fact they didn't believe in Santa Claus either.



http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/...atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

 

[Better Every Day]

I never said you couldn't find an example of someone who believes Christ preordains the outcome of everything including sporting events. You were referring to what Ben was saying or people who make similar statements. And people who thank Christ (especially win or lose) certainly aren't claiming he fixes fights. And the rest is you just being purposely obtuse. Or do you think when they continue on and thank their trainers and friends and family they are saying they fixed the fights? Seriously, try to have an honest conversation instead of working so hard at the opposite.

I have never once said anything about Benson in any comment in this thread. In fact, I gave my hypothetical question as "Would it be just as acceptible for an atheist UFC fighter saying, after beating a Christian fighter known to thank God in the ring following wins...", which is a hypothetical that involved behavior "following wins". Whereas BENSON LOST, remember? Clearly my hypothetical, if it should be looked at in an inverted way, was describing a very common but DIFFERENT situation from the one with Benson. And the situation I described is the situation of my concern about double-standards. I asked, ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT I DESCRIBED, if the behavior of the atheist would be rude. You ignored what I wrote, presuming to mind-read me rather than take the question at face-value.

And you were mind-reading badly to assume that I was interested in critiquing what Benson did. If I was, I would have addressed that situation in my hypothetical rather than constructing my hypothetical as I did.

And, IN THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED, if you personally find the atheist's motives appalling or "pathetic" (your word), but not the Christian's motives (doing the very same thing and only changing who is doing it), then that is YOU ascribing badness based solely on the label "atheist" or "Christian", which I think is a bigotted thing to do.

 

[Better Every Day]

I never said you couldn't find an example of someone who believes Christ preordains the outcome of everything including sporting events.

I didn't give an example of the preordination of all things. I have in mind Christians who think that their prayers, or their ability to please God in some way, can change the outcome of future events, such as a contest that they are trying to win, because God will bless them. If you claim that "no Christian thinks that way" you are a liar. In the Guerrero example, he was given a promise from God's representative (in his eyes) that God would bless him with a victory if he did what God wanted. The outcome was not pre-ordained. It was manipulatable. And if you claim that those Christians, who after a victory, say that they give all the glory to God, aren't implying that the victory was in fact God's doing rather than their own, that the might of God was manifest in that victory, and therefore the victory should go to the glory of God, then you are either very naive or not very honest.

 

[Bob Gray]

The earliest text is written 40 years after jesus supposely lived. But you can believe what you want. But take it all with gran of salt

That's how ancient history works. The writing all come decades after the event. in the jewish palestine area there's only the writings of one person from the entire first century, Josephus. There's other fragments and inscriptions, but only one guy that actually has pages of writing attributed to him.


Case in point, Ponteus was Governor of Judea for a decade. Arguably the most important and most famous person in the entire area for ten years.

Now guess how many contemporary writings of him exist?

Zero. Not a single page or a single word. It all comes decades later.

 

[sibelle***]

Who cares? You shouldn't anything a person says seriously if they believe in a religion.

 

[kaya]

I'm pretty sure stalin, mao zedong, pol pot, and most likely hitler have scratched the surface already.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. The Vatican supported him. Nazi uniforms have God on them.

Carry on.

 

[kaya]

That's how ancient history works. The writing all come decades after the event. in the jewish palestine area there's only the writings of one person from the entire first century, Josephus. There's other fragments and inscriptions, but only one guy that actually has pages of writing attributed to him.


Case in point, Ponteus was Governor of Judea for a decade. Arguably the most important and most famous person in the entire area for ten years.

Now guess how many contemporary writings of him exist?

Zero. Not a single page or a single word. It all comes decades later.

The Pilate stone exists.

It isn't much, but it exists

 

[Bob Gray]

The Pilate stone exists.

It isn't much, but it exists

Man, how'd that get under my radar. Didn't even know about it. Pretty cool. Although technically it doesn't mention his name and its inferred. Maybe they're talking about Po-"oppitus Platum".

Still, goes to show just how rare actual writing was from the time period. People act like guys were walking around in togas and writing blogs on papyrus. "Met this cat named JC today. Kinda preachy but always has booze. Gonna friend list him."