Rollin' fer Jeezus

[Shadowbox]

haha. I bet he's been working his crucifix defense hard though

Crucify me once, shame on you...

 

[KGB256]

While I agree that hating on people simply for being Christians is lame (whereas hating on the concept of a god is a healthy philosophical practice), it has to be said that atheists have historically endured a lot more suffering at the hands of Christians, and probably still do.

Historic suffering is not a justification to continue a centuries old cycle of abuse, but rather a reason to rise above it. Trying to combat intolerance with more intolerance just ensures that nothing ever changes.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Historic suffering is not a justification to continue a centuries old cycle of abuse, but rather a reason to rise above it. Trying to combat intolerance with more intolerance just ensures that nothing ever changes.

Because Christians are so tolerant of belief systems other than theirs. Christians have a biblical duty to try and convert everyone (Matthew 28:19-20), it's an aggressive faith and always has been. The only intolerance Christians won't abide is intolerance of Christianity by non-Christians.

 

[KGB256]

Because Christians are so tolerant of belief systems other than theirs. Christians have a biblical duty to try and convert everyone (Matthew 28:19-20), it's an aggressive faith and always has been. The only intolerance Christians won't abide is intolerance of Christianity by non-Christians.

There are plenty of tolerant Christians that don't jump down people's throats with the holier-than-thou crap, just like there are plenty of militant atheists that will lecture you if you say "bless you" after they sneeze.

I've been an agnostic for 20 years. Only a handful of people who knew I wasn't a Christian have tried to convince me to believe. Precisely one of them persisted beyond a polite but firm "no thank you", and that was my dad. It wasn't out of some moral judgment, it was that he didn't want to see his kid wind up in hell. Also, he had moments in his life where he found a great deal of strength and comfort in his faith, and felt like I might find it helpful. What a jerk, right?

I have no idea who these folks are that are always descending on you and trying to force you to join their church. I lived in Provo, Utah for 3 years and didn't face that at all. I'm currently in the buckle of the Bible belt, and only one person has even tried to have the religion conversation with me in the 7 years I've lived here.

Suffice it to say that either our experiences, or our definition of "aggressive" differ.

And as a final point, the point I was making in my prior post is that by showing intolerance to Christians, you only invite more back upon yourself. Likewise for the Christians that are showing intolerance to you. There's only one way to break that cycle, and that is being an adult and rising above it.

 

[Uchi Mata]

There are plenty of tolerant Christians that don't jump down people's throats with the holier-than-thou crap, just like there are plenty of militant atheists that will lecture you if you say "bless you" after they sneeze.

I've been an agnostic for 20 years. Only a handful of people who knew I wasn't a Christian have tried to convince me to believe. Precisely one of them persisted beyond a polite but firm "no thank you", and that was my dad. It wasn't out of some moral judgment, it was that he didn't want to see his kid wind up in hell. Also, he had moments in his life where he found a great deal of strength and comfort in his faith, and felt like I might find it helpful. What a jerk, right?

I have no idea who these folks are that are always descending on you and trying to force you to join their church. I lived in Provo, Utah for 3 years and didn't face that at all. I'm currently in the buckle of the Bible belt, and only one person has even tried to have the religion conversation with me in the 7 years I've lived here.

Suffice it to say that either our experiences, or our definition of "aggressive" differ.

And as a final point, the point I was making in my prior post is that by showing intolerance to Christians, you only invite more back upon yourself. Likewise for the Christians that are showing intolerance to you. There's only one way to break that cycle, and that is being an adult and rising above it.

Try running for office in Alabama as an open agnostic and see how far you get. Sure, there are a lot of militant atheists out there, but they don't have the power to discriminate and legislate their religion the way Christians do, especially in your neck of the woods. If it weren't for the supreme court, I have no doubt Alabama would have mandatory school prayer and all abortions would be illegal on the basis of life beginning at conception. We can take it up in the War Room if you like, I feel bad posting anything political on F12.

For the record, I have no problem with Atos. If religion is an important part of your life and you want to form a team of like minded people, good for you. I've also been to gyms where essentially everyone was an atheist and the few religious people probably felt uncomfortable talking about anything church related. I've trained with Atos guys and never had any issues, and I'm (probably pretty clearly) an agnostic who leans pretty close to atheism. I just don't talk about it in BJJ, there's no reason to bring it to the mat. One great thing about the gym is that a lot of differences disappear once you put on the gi.

 

[Balto]

all abortions would be illegal on the basis of life beginning at conception.

You're mixing up politics and religion. Saying that life begins at conception is just a simple, correct scientific statement. There is nothing religious about that one. It is plainly true based on science.

Now whether that makes abortion okay or not is more complex than that. But again it's a moral argument, not a religious one.

Just because religions teach a moral code does not mean that morality is inherently religious. Otherwise atheists could never have morals, which is clearly false.

People having different moral values or political views is not an example of religious intolerance.

 

[Championstuff]

when i go to the gym, people don't care what religious views i have, and i don't care what religious views they have. it simply is not important on the mat.

 

[Uchi Mata]

You're mixing up politics and religion. Saying that life begins at conception is just a simple, correct scientific statement. There is nothing religious about that one. It is plainly true based on science.

Now whether that makes abortion okay or not is more complex than that. But again it's a moral argument, not a religious one.

Just because religions teach a moral code does not mean that morality is inherently religious. Otherwise atheists could never have morals, which is clearly false.

People having different moral values or political views is not an example of religious intolerance.

Must not...get pulled into political discussion on F12...too weak...

...life doesn't begin at conception, if you want to define it like that. The cells which combine to form an embryo were already alive, they combined and multiplied but cell multiplication happens every day. You might as well say a lung or heart is conceived every day because new alveoli or smooth muscle are formed. Clearly the intent of my statement, which believe to be the common usage, is that human consciousness/individuality doesn't form on day 1. This is pretty obvious if you think consciousness and personality are a function of the (not yet developed) mind like most atheists do, less so if you think that consciousness/personhood is a function of being imbued with an eternal soul like Christians do. The moral argument that you're killing a human by abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy rather than getting rid of a portion of your own cellular tissue are based on the idea of personhood via an eternal soul. Certainly we can agree that it's wrong to kill people whether we're religious or not, but in abortion only the question of 'what is a person' becomes of fundamental importance, and for many people that's a deeply religious question. You can't extricate religion from the discussion that easily.

 

[Alonbenav]

You're mixing up politics and religion. Saying that life begins at conception is just a simple, correct scientific statement. There is nothing religious about that one. It is plainly true based on science.

Now whether that makes abortion okay or not is more complex than that. But again it's a moral argument, not a religious one.

Ummm, no, human life does not begin at conception. That is demonstrably FALSE as a scientific statement. Here, the religious standard does not match the scientific one.

 

[He Man]

Personhood vs Living.

If it has its own unique DNA and chromosomal patterns which later develops into a full human (if you dont kill it), that is a seperate organism completely. Religious arent concerned with if the organism has a personality, they are concerned that the organism is LIVING.

A person in a coma has no consciousness. A drugged person has no consciousness. Is it ok to kill them?

And there are better options than abortion: Adoption.

A thought.

 

[Balto]

Ummm, no, human life does not begin at conception. That is demonstrably FALSE as a scientific statement. Here, the religious standard does not match the scientific one.

Sure it is alive. It is clearly a living biological organism by any definition. The bacteria living on you is also alive.

Now whether you consider something that is alive, has all of the genetic components necessary to develop into a full human being, and is currently developing on that path to be "human life", that is what I meant about the question being more complex.

But it is undoubtedly a living organism, and it is undoubtedly one that has a full set of genetic instructions to be human.

 

[KGB256]

Try running for office in Alabama as an open agnostic and see how far you get. Sure, there are a lot of militant atheists out there, but they don't have the power to discriminate and legislate their religion the way Christians do, especially in your neck of the woods. If it weren't for the supreme court, I have no doubt Alabama would have mandatory school prayer and all abortions would be illegal on the basis of life beginning at conception. We can take it up in the War Room if you like, I feel bad posting anything political on F12.

The fact that we got from religion to politics in one reply tells me that your issue isn't with religion at all, it's with political positions you disagree with. I'm not touching the political issues you've brought up, because they're irrelevant to the discussion. People are allowed to advocate for political issues or politicians any way they see fit. If you have an issue with their positions, vote for someone else or get involved personally to advocate for the opposing viewpoint. But holding it against everyone that believes in the same God as they do is....well, stupid.

For the record, I have no problem with Atos. If religion is an important part of your life and you want to form a team of like minded people, good for you. I've also been to gyms where essentially everyone was an atheist and the few religious people probably felt uncomfortable talking about anything church related. I've trained with Atos guys and never had any issues, and I'm (probably pretty clearly) an agnostic who leans pretty close to atheism. I just don't talk about it in BJJ, there's no reason to bring it to the mat. One great thing about the gym is that a lot of differences disappear once you put on the gi.

Personally, I'm not sure at all why we're even having this discussion. The founders of Atos believe what they believe, and don't force it on others. If someone talks it once in a while and you feel uncomfortable with that, deal with it or train elsewhere.

Atos clearly isn't the group of folks you were referring to in your other paragraph or previous post...so why is this even an issue?

 

[Balto]

Must not...get pulled into political discussion on F12...too weak...

...life doesn't begin at conception, if you want to define it like that. The cells which combine to form an embryo were already alive, they combined and multiplied but cell multiplication happens every day. You might as well say a lung or heart is conceived every day because new alveoli or smooth muscle are formed. Clearly the intent of my statement, which believe to be the common usage, is that human consciousness/individuality doesn't form on day 1. This is pretty obvious if you think consciousness and personality are a function of the (not yet developed) mind like most atheists do, less so if you think that consciousness/personhood is a function of being imbued with an eternal soul like Christians do. The moral argument that you're killing a human by abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy rather than getting rid of a portion of your own cellular tissue are based on the idea of personhood via an eternal soul. Certainly we can agree that it's wrong to kill people whether we're religious or not, but in abortion only the question of 'what is a person' becomes of fundamental importance, and for many people that's a deeply religious question. You can't extricate religion from the discussion that easily.

I don't think it's necessarily based on personhood via an eternal soul. I think it's based on the fact that something has been created which is biologically alive, has a full set of human DNA, and is currently developing into a human. If you kill that, you are stopping it from developing into a human like it naturally would if you just left it alone.

To me that is analogous to killing my baby son to stop him from growing into an adult. He can't really reason yet (at least not that I can tell as he has not learned to talk), but he is very much alive to me. So it is with a conceived baby.

I'm pro-choice actually because although I've established that the conceived baby is alive, the mother is also alive. So what affects one life also affects the other life. I think the mother should be able to choose.

The fact that I believe in souls is a complete aside to this discussion. You'll notice that I did not mention soul at all in my explanation.

Likewise, please note that you seem to have a strong opinion on this topic, yet you are a professed agnostic. If you cannot extricate religion from the topic, how do you have an opinion without having a religion? If that were true, you would have to conclude on this topic that either side could be right because you just don't know. But you seem to be able to come to a different conclusion because it is indeed separate from religion.

 

[Wanderlei Industries]

Don't the IBJJF know that rifts are easily mended?

Awwwww yeah.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I don't think it's necessarily based on personhood via an eternal soul. I think it's based on the fact that something has been created which is biologically alive, has a full set of human DNA, and is currently developing into a human. If you kill that, you are stopping it from developing into a human like it naturally would if you just left it alone.

To me that is analogous to killing my baby son to stop him from growing into an adult. He can't really reason yet (at least not that I can tell as he has not learned to talk), but he is very much alive to me. So it is with a conceived baby.

It's all where you choose to draw the line. Is every sperm a child because it could conceivably combine with an egg to form a person? That was the official position of the Catholic church for hundreds of years, may still be for all I know.

I'm pro-choice actually because although I've established that the conceived baby is alive, the mother is also alive. So what affects one life also affects the other life. I think the mother should be able to choose.

The fact that I believe in souls is a complete aside to this discussion. You'll notice that I did not mention soul at all in my explanation.

Very pointedly. But the question is if the belief in a soul is irrelevant then why do you care about a non-conscious small bunch of cells? Again, it's about drawing lines and it's hard for me not to think your religiosity plays a role

Likewise, please note that you seem to have a strong opinion on this topic, yet you are a professed agnostic. If you cannot extricate religion from the topic, how do you have an opinion without having a religion? If that were true, you would have to conclude on this topic that either side could be right because you just don't know. But you seem to be able to come to a different conclusion because it is indeed separate from religion.

I'm only an agnostic because I acknowledge that it's impossible to say something doesn't exist. Pure atheism is a scientifically untenable position, since you can't disprove the existence of something. For all practical purposes, I am however an atheist. I think all the evidence points to the non-existence of God, I believe there's no God as strongly as I believe there's not a giant teapot flying around the sun opposite Earth's orbit, since there's absolutely zero evidence for either outside of wishful thinking (certainly a sentient, caring God as outlined in the bible). As for whether religion has an influence on my feelings on the topic of abortion, only insofar as religion is the main driving force of those who wish to make it wholly illegal. Could either side be right? Sure, you could have a soul that survives after death and has been there since you were conceived. I think the weight of evidence is so strongly on the side of you not having such a soul that we shouldn't restrict the freedom of women to choose what to do with their own bodies, certainly early in the pregnancy. I'm actually against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and I think it's a sad thing anytime anyone has one, but my arguments are moral, not religious (two very different things though obviously most religious people draw much of their moral philosophy from their religions). Not having a religion doesn't preclude me from having beliefs, about morals, values, ethics, or anything else. It just means that my beliefs are not based upon the bible or some other text, or any set of clerics and their teachings.

Can we go back to talking about whether or not if Eddie Bravo trained Judo in a gi he could beat Rickson in a submission only match with knee reaping?

 

[deadlizard]

the real question here is whether you'd put jesus in crucifix if you rolled with him?

So wrong, yet, so right.

10/10

 

[Balto]

It's all where you choose to draw the line. Is every sperm a child because it could conceivably combine with an egg to form a person? That was the official position of the Catholic church for hundreds of years, may still be for all I know.



Very pointedly. But the question is if the belief in a soul is irrelevant then why do you care about a non-conscious small bunch of cells? Again, it's about drawing lines and it's hard for me not to think your religiosity plays a role



I'm only an agnostic because I acknowledge that it's impossible to say something doesn't exist. Pure atheism is a scientifically untenable position, since you can't disprove the existence of something. For all practical purposes, I am however an atheist. I think all the evidence points to the non-existence of God, I believe there's no God as strongly as I believe there's not a giant teapot flying around the sun opposite Earth's orbit, since there's absolutely zero evidence for either outside of wishful thinking (certainly a sentient, caring God as outlined in the bible). As for whether religion has an influence on my feelings on the topic of abortion, only insofar as religion is the main driving force of those who wish to make it wholly illegal. Could either side be right? Sure, you could have a soul that survives after death and has been there since you were conceived. I think the weight of evidence is so strongly on the side of you not having such a soul that we shouldn't restrict the freedom of women to choose what to do with their own bodies, certainly early in the pregnancy. I'm actually against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and I think it's a sad thing anytime anyone has one, but my arguments are moral, not religious (two very different things though obviously most religious people draw much of their moral philosophy from their religions). Not having a religion doesn't preclude me from having beliefs, about morals, values, ethics, or anything else. It just means that my beliefs are not based upon the bible or some other text, or any set of clerics and their teachings.

Can we go back to talking about whether or not if Eddie Bravo trained Judo in a gi he could beat Rickson in a submission only match with knee reaping?

That's not quite the position of the Catholic church. It's not that every sperm is a person. It's that sex should be procreative because it would be wrong to waste the opportunity. That is indeed still the position of the Catholic church. It is the basis they use to oppose non-abortive contraception like condoms.

That's not my personal position, but I always like to clarify those things because there is a lot of misconception out there.

As to why I would care about a non-conscious small bunch of cells, it is the same reason I care about a baby that cries and blows snot on me and gets me sick all the time and uses up all my money. He is my son. That's all I need to care.

I'm not here to debate your moral beliefs. I understand where you are coming from. I'm just pointing out that others having different moral beliefs is not religious persecution. Most of these issues are not even religious. Religious debates are things like why does God allow evil in the world if he is all powerful and all good, etc. Moral debates are different.

I know you know that Atos is not a team that is going to persecute, shove things down your throat, etc., but just the fact that this got brought up implies that strongly Christian people tend to do that sort of stuff. Some do, many don't (I think most don't but tough to prove), and Atos definitely does not.

Also, Eddie is still coasting on the fame from a miracle triangle choke ten years ago. Debate that.

 

[Uchi Mata]

That's not quite the position of the Catholic church. It's not that every sperm is a person. It's that sex should be procreative because it would be wrong to waste the opportunity. That is indeed still the position of the Catholic church. It is the basis they use to oppose non-abortive contraception like condoms.

That's not my personal position, but I always like to clarify those things because there is a lot of misconception out there.

As to why I would care about a non-conscious small bunch of cells, it is the same reason I care about a baby that cries and blows snot on me and gets me sick all the time and uses up all my money. He is my son. That's all I need to care.

I'm not here to debate your moral beliefs. I understand where you are coming from. I'm just pointing out that others having different moral beliefs is not religious persecution. Most of these issues are not even religious. Religious debates are things like why does God allow evil in the world if he is all powerful and all good, etc. Moral debates are different.

I know you know that Atos is not a team that is going to persecute, shove things down your throat, etc., but just the fact that this got brought up implies that strongly Christian people tend to do that sort of stuff. Some do, many don't (I think most don't but tough to prove), and Atos definitely does not.

My point was that when religious beliefs lead you to restrict the freedoms of others then that's religious persecution, or at least religiously motivated political persecution (stoning adulterers may be legal in some countries, but I still think it would fall under religious persecution and not political persecution of adulterers, since the law only exists because of religious beliefs). But certainly, the majority of Christians are not trying to force people to live biblically or choose between conversion and death. Not for 500 years or so :icon_twis

Also, Eddie is still coasting on the fame from a miracle triangle choke ten years ago. Debate that.

There's no debate on that. I think that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt

 

[shunyata]

Can anyone enlighten me as to the deal with atheists feeling the need to hate on people for being Christians

I'm pretty sure it's firmly rooted in the history of Christians flat out torturing and murdering people who were not Christians and even torturing and murdering other Christians for not being the correct type of Christian.

Alot of people are still pretty upset about that.

when i go to the gym, people don't care what religious views i have, and i don't care what religious views they have. it simply is not important on the mat.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. Only training and competion matters inside the gym. We don't discuss anything else.

 

[Balto]

My point was that when religious beliefs lead you to restrict the freedoms of others then that's religious persecution, or at least religiously motivated political persecution (stoning adulterers may be legal in some countries, but I still think it would fall under religious persecution and not political persecution of adulterers, since the law only exists because of religious beliefs). But certainly, the majority of Christians are not trying to force people to live biblically or choose between conversion and death. Not for 500 years or so :icon_twis



There's no debate on that. I think that's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt

A lot of morality in East Asia is influenced by Confucianism, and that does not even mention God at all. There are still plenty of moral laws in that area, but most of the thought behind them was completely separate from religion.

Take North Korea as an example. It is a completely atheist government, but the government still has plenty of laws telling you what you can or can't do with your life. Prostitution is illegal there because it is considered immoral. Morality is not seen as related to religion at all.