Is Fedor the only MMA fighter whos religious affair seems authentic?

All these kinds of arguments seem to center around straw men either way (either through ignorance or consious decision). A lot of atheist, for example, argue against a specific form of Christianity that the vast majority of Christians themselves wouldn't adheer to and don't identify themselves with. It's pointless to argue over a position that no one actually holds.
 
Vitor is legit. It doesn't say in the Bible you can't take TRT.

Bendo supposedly is christian but he does that weird illumiati hand symbol before fights, kinda satanic..

Are you fucking kidding me?????
 
Fighting isn't very Christian, imo. Fedor is one of the greatest fighters on the planet. Fedor must be a very poor example of authentic Christianity
 
Fighting out of anger doesn't seem very Christian but as a sport doesn't seem that bad depending on your motives of course
 
Lmao you're an idiot. Where in the bible does it say not to use trt? Where in the bible does it say not to use symbols that conspiracy loons might think means something else? I will say luckily none of the fighters are truly christian in that they dont follow the teachings of the bible and stone people who work on Sunday, stone disobedient children, own slaves, treat women as property, kill gays, and most probably eat shell fish.

hey, look, someone who thinks they understand the Bible
 
Fighting isn't very Christian, imo. Fedor is one of the greatest fighters on the planet. Fedor must be a very poor example of authentic Christianity

The apostle Paul made allusions to boxing within the scriptures. Wrestling is also alluded to. The Bible condemns "violence" in the terms of wanton acts of taking life, raping & pillaging, but not in the sense of a controlled sporting environment. just saying.

Also, in before someone relates the horrors of Roman Catholicism to "Christianity".
 
No, but it's way more acceptable because he isn't shoving it in your face
 
Hahaha. I never understand how something that somebody doesn't believe in could offend them so bad. How sensitive have people become that someone thanking the god that they worship after a fight is "shoving religion down someone's throat"

When someone thanks their wife or a friend why don't people offended also? Same difference

Because sometimes people fly into buldings because of things you don't believe in.
 
Hahaha. And you say my logic is flawed. You don't think it is even possible that someone that doesn't believe in anything might look at people like animals with no purpose and feels nothing when he rapes or kills.

That's very possible if we are talking about a sociopath. Sociopaths can be either religious or nonreligious. You can even use religion to justify differences between the value of people. It is done all the time. You could have a nonreligious belief structure that did the same thing. But on average, atheists show at least as much moral fiber as theists.

Like I said. People are people. Religion or no religion.... They will do bad things

It is impossible not to have belief. Event if you believe in nothing but randomness it is still a belief

A lack of belief in God or gods is not itself a belief. So, a nonbeliever can have fucked up beliefs, but not due to being a nonbeliever.
 
The apostle Paul made allusions to boxing within the scriptures. Wrestling is also alluded to. The Bible condemns "violence" in the terms of wanton acts of taking life, raping & pillaging, but not in the sense of a controlled sporting environment. just saying.

Also, in before someone relates the horrors of Roman Catholicism to "Christianity".

lol, oh yeah? you come from a branch of Christianity that doesn't have its roots in Catholocism? The only way you could even make a valid argument for that is by saying that you're Orthodox, in which case your religion asked the Catholics to come save you from the Muslims.
 
That's very possible if we are talking about a sociopath. Sociopaths can be either religious or nonreligious. You can even use religion to justify differences between the value of people. It is done all the time. You could have a nonreligious belief structure that did the same thing. But on average, atheists show at least as much moral fiber as theists.



A lack of belief in God or gods is not itself a belief. So, a nonbeliever can have fucked up beliefs, but not due to being a nonbeliever.

I like your av a lot. That picture was hanging on my wall for years.
 
how many times have you seen some fat, pimply atheist ranting on youtube?

539817634985135968019261370^99999999999999

a strong argument could be made for the fact that most atheists aren't successful anywhere except in the entertainment industry where they share their opinions all of the time in satire. of course this argument would be wrong. the atheists that are successful don't rant and rave about being atheists. that's just he keyboard/youtube video warriors who don't have anything significant happening in their lives. I do find it to be quite funny that many of the scientists' whose work atheists cite, are/were not atheists, though.

to claim that people on your side don't jam anything down anyone's throat sounds very ignorant, because there are loudmouthed assholes in every corner.

(plus to thank science for a victory in sports would sound a lot like admitting to PEDs)

Atheists are on average more intelligent, more educated, have higher incomes than theists and are significantly underrepresented among prison populations by comparison.

How is blogging on youtube from an atheist perspective jamming something down someone's throat? The way I see it, it is backlash against the way religion does that out in the real world everyone has to live in, and you don't have to watch the videos... The internet is a place where atheists actually feel like they can have a voice so you see a lot of them around compared to outside of it, but it isn't like they are jamming it down people's throats.
 
lol, oh yeah? you come from a branch of Christianity that doesn't have its roots in Catholocism? The only way you could even make a valid argument for that is by saying that you're Orthodox, in which case your religion asked the Catholics to come save you from the Muslims.

Faith in Christ existed for about 300 years IN ROME ITSELF prior to Constantine forming The Roman Catholic Church. Meanwhile, Christians were burned at the stake, fed to lions & killed for sport within the coliseums. It was only after it was seen that the movement was not going anywhere that it was infiltrated & replaced with the merger of pagan practices within Rome & so called Christianity that is Roman Catholicism. thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
lol, oh yeah? you come from a branch of Christianity that doesn't have its roots in Catholocism? The only way you could even make a valid argument for that is by saying that you're Orthodox, in which case your religion asked the Catholics to come save you from the Muslims.

(I'm assuming you mean Eastern Ortodox Church when you wrote Ortodox, considering your comment about the Muslims)

There are numerous other Christians chuches as well whom were not schismed from Catholicism (or at least, what we today identify as Catholicism). All the Oriental Churches for example, like the Copts or Jacobites. Or the Nesotarian Churches as another example. Or Churches whom identify with ancient gnostic or unitarian movememnts, etc. Though I'm not sure how the "roots" thing is supposed to link the two togheter. It's like saying all Americans are English since America was originally a colony of England.
 
Atheists are on average more intelligent, more educated, have higher incomes than theists and are significantly underrepresented among prison populations by comparison.

How is blogging on youtube from an atheist perspective jamming something down someone's throat? The way I see it, it is backlash against the way religion does that out in the real world everyone has to live in, and you don't have to watch the videos... The internet is a place where atheists actually feel like they can have a voice so you see a lot of them around compared to outside of it, but it isn't like they are jamming it down people's throats.

you have data to support that?

even if it was true, that could be explained away easily by the fact that there are far more theists and atheism is a relatively young movement started (or at least gained most of its traction) in educated circles.

many other philosophies and scientific movements that have since failed could have been described the same way.

you could also say that republicans on average have a higher income and a higher level of education than democrats. why? not because they're better, but because the left wing reaches out to poor people (like churches do). it's easy to use statistics that don't accurately represent the whole story.

I'm not even really a Christian. It's just stupid to argue that one way is better than the other. Considering that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, a logical person would probably side with Pascal on this one, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
 
(I'm assuming you mean Eastern Ortodox Church when you wrote Ortodox, considering your comment about the Muslims)

There are numerous other Christians chuches as well whom were not schismed from Catholicism (or at least, what we today identify as Catholicism). All the Oriental Churches for example, like the Copts or Jacobites. Or the Nesotarian Churches as another example. Though I'm not sure how the "roots" thing is supposed to link the two togheter. It's like saying all Americans are English since America was originally a colony of England.



My thoughts excacly.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I know that I'm making a wild assumption here, but I took it for granted that a white guy named Tyler speaking English on the internet is, statistically speaking, highly unlikely to belong to a very small sect of Christianity that's majority population is in the Middle East, North Africa, or East Asia.

No, it's not like saying all Americans are English. He was disassociating with the actions of the Catholics while associating with an unnamed branch of Christianity that likely didn't split until well after the aforementioned atrocities were committed by Catholics. So, it's a lot more like saying someone who identifies with America, also identifies with the actions of the 13 colonies before they were an independent nation.

You can try to straw man me all day long.
 
An all-knowing God would most likely know you're just being religious as a safty-net rather than being genuinely faithful.

that's true. It was tongue-in-cheek comment, as it likely was when Pascal first proposed it. I imagine he was a smart enough guy to realize that long before your comment on teh interwebz.

a joke, you know?
 
Back
Top