Morning Huddle – No Major Chiefs News Today

 208 replies

Chiefs news for 3 February 2019

Patrick Mahomes Named 2018 Most Valuable Player | The Mothership

Watch the top 10 plays by Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes as he wins NFL MVP in the 2018 season.

Best Twitter reactions from Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes’ MVP win | USA Today

It’s a monumental occasion in Kansas City and twitter has chimed in. Here are the best Twitter reactions from Patrick Mahomes’ special evening in Atlanta.

GOAT: Former Kansas City Chief Tony Gonzalez elected to NFL Hall of Fame | KMBC

Gonzalez earned the honor Saturday, being selected for the top honor in professional football on the first ballot. No tight end has ever been elected on his first try until today. Gonzalez transformed the tight end position, finishing second in NFL history among all players in catches. He also caught 173 more passes than any other tight end.

Chiefs greats Gonzalez, Robinson elected to football Hall of Fame; Law makes cut, too | KC Star

Robinson, 80, was the sole senior finalist and needed 80 percent of the vote to be elected. And while Robinson’s selection was long overdue, Gonzalez was elected the first year he was eligible, becoming the first tight end to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Also elected was cornerback Ty Law, whose career included 2006-07 in Kansas City.

KC Chiefs: New fullback could spell doom for Anthony Sherman | KC Kingdom

This could just be a move the Chiefs made as they decide what to do with Anthony Sherman (if anything), but even if Ripkowski isn’t the answer moving forward, Sherman’s days in Kansas City could be numbered regardless.

The Kansas City Chiefs struck gold with Damien Williams | Arrowhead Addict

Despite rushing for less than 200 yards every season so far in the NFL, Damien Williams would transition from watching Kareem Hunt hurdle over cornerbacks from the sideline to lining up in the backfield behind the hottest commodity the city had seen in its football history.

Morning Bowl of (T)Weeties:

Editor’s Note: There were about 30 million more tweets I could have added in this section. I am aware that I missed some. Please add any good ones that didn’t get posted here in the comments! Gotta say, I love this first one, though.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
208 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Berserker
Berserker
02/03/2019 2:20 pm
Tyrone
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 5:25 pm

Good. They don’t hand out life bans enough at stadiums.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
02/03/2019 12:19 pm

Awwww, Romo finally going to a Super Bowl!
I kind of feel bad for him because he’s a likable guy. Would have loved to see him go to a Super Bowl with another team (screw the Cowboys) as a player.

Tarkus
02/03/2019 11:49 am

For those wondering why the coaching staff hasn’t been announced…

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  Tarkus
02/03/2019 12:01 pm

Not a move I would make, personally. I would take the “lateral” move to the same position in the NFL.
Reid > Herm, NFL > NCAA.

Tarkus
Reply to  chief_curmudgeon
02/03/2019 12:11 pm

Doesn’t seem the best career move, but some things are more important than career advancement. He’s probably really happy where he’s at.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  Tarkus
02/03/2019 12:15 pm

Which is why he should stay. I would have made the move.
Same thing with Kyler Murray. I would play football. He should do whichever he enjoys more.

slackator
slackator
Reply to  chief_curmudgeon
02/03/2019 12:53 pm

according to Chiefs Wire hes also the Recruiting Coordinator so he has a vested interest in staying at ASU so its not a straight lateral move

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  slackator
02/03/2019 12:57 pm

My personal career goals would be to be BB (except more likable while not cheating). Hence why I would have made the move.
If those are not his goals and he is happy where he is, he made the right move and should be applauded for doing so. People being happy what they are doing should always be the goal, rather than advancement for advancement’s sake.

Mitko
02/03/2019 10:46 am

Can someone better @ twittering than I make a MVPat tweet compilation, but just of salty Brees and Donald fans

Anthony Stratton
Admin
02/03/2019 10:08 am

EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:35 am

Thoughts about the defensive line – IF Speaks, Nnadi, Jones, and Ford are the projected starters, I worry about Speaks and his physicality at the DE position and whether Ford becomes a liability in the run game. My favorite lineman in the draft is Dexter Lawrence who would be an upgrade over Nnadi but that is a luxury pick. I personally believe that KPASS should get a look at either DE position and would love to see him and Jones together inside on a pass rush. How do X Williams or Hamilton fit into this rotation? Are either a candidate to replace Speaks if he is not up to the task? Given that Ford is back for one year max, I would imagine that we target a pass rushing DE in the draft – not sure who might be available when we pick.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:39 am

I think Speaks will be fine.
I have serious reservations on Ford though. So much so I think I would tag & trade or let him walk.
‘Plan A’ would be to sign Anthony Barr to play SAM and Houston plays LEO. ‘Plan B’ would be to sign Brandon Graham to play LEO.
Either way, LEO has to be able to set the edge and I don’t have a lot of confidence that Ford can do that alone.

EAFOX
Reply to  chief_curmudgeon
02/03/2019 9:45 am

Trey Flowers would be an excellent, though probably expensive addition. Rumors are circulating that Houston is on his way out due to salary cap reasons.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:52 am

Flowers is a heck of a player. BB seems to get the best of his players, so just realize he likely won’t be as good without BB.
I could see Houston being a cap casualty, especially if they feel he doesn’t fit the scheme. I think there is a place for him, and I would restructure to bring his cap number down in return for more guaranteed money and another year or two tacked on the end.

Leaf
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 10:03 am

Those rumors are speculation only. Not really true rumors. I got sucked into a couple of click bait “rumors” only to find them saying what we all have been saying. Houston is expensive so it’s not unthinkable to part ways. No one has claimed any inside info.

Mattl
Mattl
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 10:20 am

Ok, here’s inside information. Since I was chatting online here about Houston/Ford last night, I had a dream that we tagged Ford and traded him to Seattle. Unfortunately, I woke up before finding out what we got in return. So there you go. (I remember being frustrated in my dream that the trade was announced, but NOT the compensation! I was praying it was a 1st, but was afraid it was a 2nd.)

Mitko
Reply to  Mattl
02/03/2019 10:43 am

It was probably a 4th and a 2020 2nd like Peters. That’s what you get for a star 1st round pick that the fans hate right?

Mattl
Mattl
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 10:47 am

Except I love Ford!

EAFOX
Reply to  Mattl
02/03/2019 11:08 am

Any GM willing to give up a first for Ford should be fired. Had one very good season and was up and down for the rest. Contract year excellence can be a scary thing.

Leaf
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 11:29 am

If someone offered a first for Ford, I’d pay for Ford’s plane ticket.

Mitko
Reply to  Mattl
02/03/2019 1:19 pm

Me too. But a lot of Chiefs fans wanted him gone

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 1:49 pm

I don’t think that’s true. I think that a lot of Chiefs fans just don’t believe that he can repeat what he did this season, since it was by far his best season so far.

Mitko
02/03/2019 9:34 am

I’ve never had Gumbo, but it must be extra salty with all the tears from Saints fans the last two weeks.

EAFOX
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 9:36 am

With all the outrage that we have had over Ford and the OT fiasco, imagine what we would be like had we got hosed as blatantly as the Saints did.

Mitko
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:40 am

I’m more refering to the ones on Twitter this morning saying Brees should have been the MVP this year.

EAFOX
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 9:42 am

OK – The Saints fans are pure homers on that one.

Anthony Stratton
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 10:10 am

It checks out.

EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:10 am

SO – Antonio Pierce is not joining the Chiefs coaching staff as LB coach. Wonder where the new candidate comes from?

Leaf
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:57 am

While I would have liked pierce, I’m not shocked by the outcome. Earlier rumors pegged it as a long shot because he liked his current gig.

Yoshii
Yoshii
02/03/2019 9:03 am

congrats to mahomes!!!

EAFOX
02/03/2019 8:56 am

It is what it is cause, if you make enough predictions, something will come true. I spent this last off season on that one site predicting that Patrick Mahomes would be a serious MVP candidate and eventual winner. Glad to see I was right about this one.

Damn, it feels good to have Mahomes here.

wvchiefsfan
wvchiefsfan
02/03/2019 8:09 am

So the sportsmanship award goes to the qb from the team that has been full bore butt hurt and complaining about how the officiating screwed them? I assumed he didn’t show up to the nfl honors show because of the second place mvp finish. Did the definition of sportsmanship change recently?

Anthony Stratton
Reply to  wvchiefsfan
02/03/2019 10:11 am

NFL trolling….

Tarkus
Reply to  wvchiefsfan
02/03/2019 12:29 pm

I think Rivers finished in second place.

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
02/03/2019 7:55 am

Just did some math….

Damien Williams averaged 4.88 yards per carry & 7.60 yards per catch last year. In the games he was starting, he was averaging about 15 rushes and four catches per game….

It comes down to 1170 rushing yards and over 480 receiving yards per season. Nearly 1700 all-purpose yards.

/nods

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
02/03/2019 7:23 am

Skip Bayless

@RealSkipBayless
Patrick Mahomes, runaway NFL MVP, lost twice to Tom Brady this season. Brady threw for 182 yards in the 4th q vs KC at home and completed three straight 3rd-and-10s in overtime to keep Mahomes from even touching the football in KC two weeks ago.

Brady lost to Marcus Mariota, Blake Bortles, and Ryan Tannehill.

zulu trader
zulu trader
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 8:08 am

F**K skip bayless … this^^

Leaf
Reply to  zulu trader
02/03/2019 8:52 am

I know right. I ignore the guy, because he’s worthless. but seriously; what the the point of that tweet? There was absolutely no reason to turn a special moment in a special young QBs career into a slob knob of the QB that has had the media slobbing on his knob non stop for 18 fucking years.

EAFOX
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 9:12 am

The transition is on that the other team and quarterback will have to have a perfect game to be able to defeat the Chiefs.

EAFOX
Reply to  zulu trader
02/03/2019 9:02 am

Tom Brady defeated the Chiefs defense twice, he did not defeat Patrick Mahomes.

WTF_Chiefs
WTF_Chiefs
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 9:08 am

Just what kind of numbers do people think Pat puts up if he got one game vs Chiefs ’18 defense…..all these talking heads love to dunk of Chiefs horrid defense and turn around and heap praise on the quarterbacks that get advantage of playing against them…….I hope next year defense jumps up to 18-20 range and Andy let’s Pat work towards a 55 TD 5500 yd season and Chiefs flirt with perfection

Mitko
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 9:38 am

It’s like saying a student who got a 100 on a 2nd grade level math test is smarter the one who got a 99 in Calculus 2

EAFOX
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 9:41 am

Did the second grade test taker have better footwork than the Calculus student?

Mitko
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 10:15 am

No but he correctly called heads or tears

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 10:16 am

One of his buddies did for him.

slackator
slackator
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:58 pm

At Mizzou it could be the case or it could be the same test taker 🙂

Mitko
Reply to  slackator
02/03/2019 1:15 pm

Props for that one. ? But the real question is did they get paid to enroll in the school in the first place?

DenverDonkeyHater
DenverDonkeyHater
Reply to  zulu trader
02/03/2019 1:11 pm

I think he was just ragging on Bob Sutton

Leaf
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 8:55 am

While mahomes lost to Brady, Goff, Rivers, Wilson, & Brady again. Outside of Goff, who isn’t a schmuck, there’s nothing to complain about getting beat by those guys. It was his first year as a starter for crying out loud.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 9:23 am

Old Skippy is still stuck on QBWINZ (when it serves his narrative). What a worthless “stat”. There are so many things going into it that make Brady vs Mahomes completely stupid.
It was really [Brady vs Sutton] and [Mahomes + Reid vs BB]. Both times, I give the ‘QB’ the win. Obviously Brady shredded Sutton (as did any QB this season) and Mahomes shredded BB even worse in the second half of both games.
Skip Bayless is worthy of the same level of attention as Uncle Rico.

Mitko
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 9:30 am

Skip : Dak, I mean Luck, I mean
Brady is the MVP

Team Player
Team Player
02/03/2019 5:48 am

Nice huddle WMD, but where’s the Chiefs’ news? ?

dave9600
dave9600
02/03/2019 4:52 am

I really get tired of hearing athletes thank God. You worked hard to get where you’re at. Own that shit.

BleedingRedAndGold
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 5:15 am

I forget how it goes, but there’s an old joke about God never being in churches on Sundays during the NFL season – He’s too busy helping wide receivers catch footballs.

Make of that what you will, and praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster…

Ramen!

dave9600
dave9600
Reply to  BleedingRedAndGold
02/03/2019 7:11 am

I dont know if he exists or not but if he’d rather waste his time helping millionaires make more money than fixing some of the fucked up shit that goes on in this world then I don’t want anything to do with him.

EAFOX
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 8:59 am

Even God could not have prevented Bob Sutton.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 10:29 am

No better illustration of the state of Christianity in the United States than your downvotes here. You essentially take the words out of the Bible character Jesus Christ’s mouth and get a negative reaction.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:50 am

If I had to guess, the down votes are probably mite because it was phrased in an antagonistic manner. Religion, not just Christianity, is important to people’s lives. So when you are dismissive of their beliefs or paint it in a bad light, people get defensive because you are essentially saying what’s important to them is worthless. Call me crazy, but I’m not sure anyone wants to be told what they think is important isn’t, regardless of its even religion.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 12:40 pm

You’ve been speaking rather well for other people here, and I commend your effort. However, the broader implications of my comment stand. You are an anomaly in the Christian community. Evidence? Anecdotal in that I grew up in it. Objective in that Donald Trump is President and remains backed by Evangelicals despite almost everything he does on a daily basis being the antithesis of Jesus’ teachings. And this post will inevitably receive down votes.

DenverDonkeyHater
DenverDonkeyHater
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:16 pm

Jesus never taught to fuck porn stars while you were married? I need to go read the Bible.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  DenverDonkeyHater
02/03/2019 1:21 pm

Haha, if he did I missed that part. Also missed the part where it was god’s will for you to get as rich as possible to the detriment of others, and where he interpreted “dominion” over the earth as its systematic destruction for the benefit of the ultra-rich. But apparently it’s all in there!

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:57 pm

As a practical agnostic, I see no difference between atheism and most other religions. Well, except that atheism’s entire purpose seems to be to tear down something, while most other religions are at least supposed to be about building something.

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 1:58 pm

You’re hired

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:12 pm

Then I think you misunderstand atheism.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:24 pm

Actually, this needs a more lengthy reply, because agnostics who attack atheism in this way are just so far off base.

Not assenting to a proposition for which there is no evidence (god exists, for example) cannot be reliant on faith. We don’t say that not believing in the tooth fairy requires faith, or that not believing Aphrodite was born from Zeus’ forehead requires faith.

Your position is a mischaracterization of atheism. Not living your life under the assumption that there is a god, and not assenting to the proposition that there is one due to lack of evidence, is not an assertion of certainty. I don’t think any atheist would frame their beliefs this way. A philosophically responsible person wouldn’t say they can know to a logical certainty there is no tooth fairy, just that they don’t believe in one because there’s good reason to doubt such a being exists.

The agnostic position is the cop-out, by not staking out an actual position. Either you don’t live under the assumption that there’s a god, and you’re an atheist, or you hold out hope and you’re a spiritualist or mystic.

The proposition that atheism implies believing you know something to a logical certainty is false, and a mischaracterization of the position. I hope this helps you better understand atheism.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:28 pm

I believe that I do understand what atheism means to you.

What do you think that you’re accomplishing by proactively proclaiming your atheism? You said elsewhere that “the world needs it,” in connection to challenging religion. So, do you believe that you are helping other people, with the type of behavior you’re displaying here? Do you believe that the reason you engage in this behavior, is to help other people?

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:32 pm

I invite you to learn more about atheism. The argument that it is no different than religious belief is an old one that has been demolished over and over again.

And as for this conversation, it just baffles me that people get so offended. There are a few of us who have been reasonably discoursing, and then others jumping in with righteous indignation. Not sure where you’re coming from, but you’ve placed yourself in the latter group and THAT, I would submit, is what is actually counter-productive.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:37 pm

No, I haven’t place myself in any group. YOU have placed me in a group. And that’s why you piss a lot of people off, and why you make me laugh cynically.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:36 pm

And to answer your question, yes, I believe anti-intellectualism and all its resulting absurdities need to be combatted by their opposites. That should be fairly obvious, I think, and not a position ripe for ridicule, unless one has had his head in the sand the last few decades and can’t see how destructive anti-intellectualism is becoming (and has been throughout history).

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:38 pm

You’re doing nothing but indulging your own juvenile arrogance.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:42 pm

And you’re just wallowing in your own masturbatory contrarianism…see? One liners don’t mean anything. [Imaginary] god forbid you try contributing to a conversation instead of always inserting your passive-aggressive insults at just the right place that might get you recs enough to satisfy your ego.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 3:09 pm

Think of that as, take it from one who would know.

As for contributing to the conversation, that’s what I was doing when I asked what you’re honestly hoping to accomplish.

Your entire approach is completely contradictory. From espousing a proactive, evangelical type approach against faith based messaging, to citing the entire thousands-years history of the advancement of human knowledge while behaving as if humanity has reached the penultimate of that knowledge just as you happen to be alive.

You’re not going to do anybody any good until your perspective gets bigger and a lot less self important. Right now, your perspective on these things is no different from those folks’ who studied Mahomes’ footwork instead of his game just because that’s what made them feel smarter than other people.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 3:37 pm

Eh, it sounds to me like you’re simply projecting an agnosticism vs. atheism argument onto an individual exchange. The approach is disingenuous, for one thing. As to the agnosticism itself, I think it lacks respect for knowledge at best, and is intellectually irresponsible at worst, for reasons enough already stated. I won’t address your various strawmen, as is my wont.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:20 pm

No, what I feel like is I’m talking to my arrogant and self centered 17-year-old self. Somebody who’s discovered knowledge so recently that he assumes he’s seen all of it. “Lacks respect for knowledge,” ha.

As for strawmen, well. Take my judgments on your perspective in the same spirit as your calling people ignorant.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/04/2019 8:56 am

It’s facile to come into conversations like this and berate people with one-liners it takes you 5-10 minutes and a thesaurus to think up. If you’re out of your depth, fine, but don’t come in here pretending like you’re above it all because you’re incapable of contributing. That’s my judgment on your perspective.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/04/2019 11:44 pm

That’s your judgment on everybody’s perspective, obviously.

You’re not out to learn from people. Your goal is to “win” a trivia-based debate based on recall of base facts that you personally happen to have stumbled across, while allowing and disallowing points based solely on your own convenience, while pretending that it’s all about some higher purpose. Every somewhat smart teenager in the history of teenagers has done the same boorish thing. Stop acting surprised when you get dismissed by the many, many folks who’ve been there done that and don’t wish to revisit our more foolish days.

dave9600
dave9600
Reply to  Leaf
02/04/2019 8:14 am

How is it antagonistic to not want anything to do with your god?

RDD India
RDD India
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 10:48 am

^this 10000. truth.

Team Player
Team Player
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 5:48 am

Success happens when preparation meets opportunity. Only one side of that equation is controllable

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 7:20 am

Yeah it’s called thanking your creator. What a douche.

WTF_Chiefs
WTF_Chiefs
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 9:04 am

There isn’t enough “chest thumping” in professional sports today!!!!! We need more extended celebrations for first down catches or routine tackles when your team is down by multiple scores…….stare down the pitcher after going yard when he struck you out previous 2 at bats on way to 7 run lead…….more pounding chest and flexing when you dunk on 3rd string center whose only playing because your team is getting ran out the building ………It’s a look at me world with social media available for world to see all your “me” moments so get as much of that as you can

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 9:28 am

Surely you aren’t suggesting that there isn’t enough narcissism and attention whoring in our culture?

StramtoReid
StramtoReid
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 9:15 am

I know I’m going to takes some it for saying this, everybody loves John Lennon song imagine. The song talks about a world with no religion, were living in a world with no religion and people living just for today . In a 100 years, i would hate to see America because people are just living for today.

I know a lot of wars have been caused by religion, there has been a lot of peace because of religion.

It is obvious that Patrick has been raised to love and honor God, and maybe that is why he is so humble . if Patrick believe his power comes from God, why would want to change his belief? Maybe if Kareem Huny followed the word of God
he wouldn’t have pushed and kicked that women.

Are we really criticizing PM#15 because he loves God?

EAFOX
Reply to  StramtoReid
02/03/2019 9:23 am

I can live with this – his biggest criticism is his love for God.

Mitko
Reply to  StramtoReid
02/03/2019 9:27 am

I know, with this blog we all have a right to say what we want and that’s what makes this blog special.
That being said I’d urge everyone here to slowly down on the religious talk before we get in a debate we all really don’t want to.
We are all from different walks of life and this could really hurt relationships and the fine community we have built here.

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 9:29 am

Yeah, this thread will turn into a dumpster fire faster than Brady looking for a flag.

Leaf
Reply to  chief_curmudgeon
02/03/2019 10:15 am

Ah, but will it be faster than rivers looking for one?

chief_curmudgeon
chief_curmudgeon
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 10:17 am

No, but just as emphatically.

EAFOX
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 9:40 am

I could care less who decides to thank God and when they choose to do so. Agree that this is not a debate that we want to head to – I just think it is plain silly that someone’s only idea to criticize Mahomes is to rag on him mentioning God when he talked.

Leaf
Reply to  EAFOX
02/03/2019 10:15 am

Debating religion isn’t inherently a bad thing. The problem occurs because sides think they are emphatically correct and look down on the other side for not seeing what they clearly can see.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  StramtoReid
02/03/2019 10:39 am

Maybe if Kareem Huny followed the word of God
he wouldn’t have pushed and kicked that women.

Here’s the problem with this….If God does in fact exist & is all knowing/powerful, then Kareem WAS following “the word of God”. Kareem did exactly what God wanted him to do, othewise God, given he’s known this would happen for billions of years (it’s that “knows all that’s to come” bit) would have stopped it. To quote Roger Waters, “What God wants, God gets”. If he gets credit for the TDs, he gets the blame for the fumbles.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 10:48 am

I’ve had this discussion many times with religious people. They can never coherently make an argument for it, but they do somehow successfully hold on to the contradictory beliefs of human free will and god’s omniscience. It usually ends with something like “human logic doesn’t apply to god,” at which point the conversation can no longer continue, obviously.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:52 pm

Do you have children? Do you love them? Do you want the best for them? Do you feel bad when they get hurt? Can you prevent them from getting hurt, making mistakes, etc. if you could completely control them would you? Or might it be better to let them have free will, forgive them when they ask, and care for them? Hope these questions help answer your silly discussion points.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mahomesisgreat
02/03/2019 2:15 pm

Actually not helpful at all.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:22 pm

Then you are not thinking too hard at all.

Leaf
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 10:55 am

That defeats the whole point of free will, which is a pivotal aspect of many Christian belief systems.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:00 am

It’s either human free will or god’s omniscience, man. Can’t have it both ways.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:16 am

No it’s not. You can know something, but still let it play out. Parents do it all the time. You know why? Experience is the best teacher.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:34 am

Parents aren’t God. They may THINK something will happen, they do not KNOW. If the end result is truly known to anyone, there is no free will. Sorry. It’s just logic applied.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:07 pm

God is like a father, as is repeatedly pointed out in scripture. He is all powerful, He knows what will happen, but one of his gifts to us is free will. Because of free will, we brought sin into the world, and with sin and evil terrible things sometimes happen. Think about this though, free will is so important to God that he allowed sin into his creation, later sacrificing his Son Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins. God never wanted automatons, He wants sons and daughters that honor Him. I would suggest that you read the Bible with an open heart and mind. You may be surprised at the result. He loves you too, more than you can imagine.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Mahomesisgreat
02/03/2019 3:20 pm

Again, if God knows the final outcome of any given circumstance, and you do what you must to get to that known outcome…where is your free will? No matter what you did, you’d end up in the same spot. Remember, I am not saying you have no free will. I am saying that you are taking your free will from yourself and giving it to God. Your choice & that is fine.
If there is sin in this world & God exists, then he wants the sin there. Because an all powerful God could certainly end sin, poverty, sickness, etc if he wanted. He hasn’t so…

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:32 am

And that’s the point, of course. They are incompatible ideas. You have to decide for yourself which one works best in your life, but also know you can’t have both. If you have free will, you don’t have a God who knows all. If you have a God who, in fact does know everything then you are just going through the motions without a true choice. Believe what you want to believe. Of course, depending on what you choose, you may have had no choice.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 11:36 am

Of course, no god does not automatically mean free will, either. Atheist and hard physical determinist here.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:52 am

No, but at least you have a chance. Conversely, you can believe in God AND free will IF you are willing to believe that God doesn’t actually know what happens next, that it’s as big a surprise to him as it is to us when it happens.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 11:55 am

Yes, but then they’ve abandoned the notion of god’s omniscience, which is noxious to a believer. This is why I find more often than not that religious people like to avoid this conundrum rather than thinking about it.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:00 pm

I agree completely. It’s a bitter pill to try to swallow & I don’t know many (a few, though) who are willing to expand what God means, what he might actually be. The idea that a Being started this whole thing without any idea of how it would end is, to me, a easy concept to grasp. Heck, I get up every single day not knowing what will happen before I get back to bed. If I am made in God’s image, why is is not possible that he is the same? Maybe he is driving this, but can’t find his keys, either.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 12:05 pm

My favorite Christian was Kierkegaard. Built a philosophy around admitting the fact that belief was nothing more than blind faith. It’s a cop out in a sense, but there’s nobility in admitting that believing in god is not reasonable. Amazing that he could come to that conclusion in the nineteenth century and today you still have people acting like religion and science are compatible.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:10 pm

Science and religion aren’t incompatible like you are implying.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 12:14 pm

No, but the eventual outcome is either it’s all explainable, hence no reason for God to exist, or God did it, which makes science less important. I guess depending on your scientific field, you could easily be a True Believer and have no conflicts at all.

Leaf
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 11:42 am

That’s incorrect. Just because God knows something doesn’t mean he’ll stop it. You think he has to because it’s so awful. But if this life is meant as a learning experience, as some religions believe, then what do you learn if God steps in? Do you learn anything if your teacher sees you about to answer something wrong on a test and changes your answer?

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:47 am

That’s not the point. Answer this question and the point will be revealed: can you do ANYTHING OTHER than what god knows you’re going to do? If no, you don’t have free will, as you’re always going to do exactly what god knows you’re going to do. If yes, then god doesn’t know what you’re going to do.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:50 am

Saved me a lot of typing.
Even if God chooses not to stop something, he still knows the eventual outcome. If he does know this outcome, then nothing you do is unexpected or of your own choosing. The difference between KNOWING and THINKING you know the outcome is huge.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:06 pm

Just because he knows what choice got are going to make doesn’t mean he didn’t allow you to make it. And that’s your hang up. You think once your God knows your choice, is now predetermined. He still let you make that choice. That’s the free will part. He doesn’t force you to follow a specific path. He can know what path you will follow, but unless he changes your path, he’s still allowing you free will.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 12:12 pm

Okay, I’ll go along with what you said. God changing his mind doesn’t give you free will. Whatever “path” he’s chosen for you is the path you’ll take, unless he changes his mind, then you’ll take the other path. But that’s god’s will, not yours.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 12:18 pm

If he let’s you make a choice, who’s choice is that? Yours Or his? He “let” you choose. You didn’t choose to choose. If he knows, really KNOWS what you’ll do (and what happens as a result of that decision), then you are walking a predetermined path. There is nothing wrong with believing this is the way it works. To me, it just limits the value of what I do in my life.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 12:37 pm

Interesting. Not sure how conversant you are in philosophy of the mind/cognitive science, but I’m curious if this means you think if physical determinism prevails it would limit the value of life.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 3:40 pm

I’d never heard of either of these, but I’ll be reading up soon. My quick search gave me a big “Hmmm” for an answer. If every event not only causes but requires the following event (right? really basic I’m sure), then that would shoot free will out the window, as well. Does this limit the value of life? Not of life, but of our value in the big picture. We are not an accident, we were inevitable. There are NOT a million ways something could actually turn out, only the way it will. All other possibilities are simply thought exercises.
Actually, this sounds a lot like an all knowing God. We think we have control, but we are really just doing what we need to to arrive at a spot we cannot avoid.
Yeah, I’ll try hard not to believe in that one, too. I like believing that what I do matters.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 3:59 pm

Not to get too far down the rabbit hole (more like an abyss), but it is essentially based in reductionism. Actually, the gist of the matter was illustrated (though imperfectly) by Laplace’s demon (which essentially mirrors an omniscient god, but the thought experiment is more sophisticated) before “hard determinism” was even a description for a school of thought. Given what we know about particles and their determinate interactions, if a being (a demon, for example) had knowledge of the exact position and trajectory of every particle in the universe, that being could predict every eventuality moving forward to the universe’s end. Now, if we extrapolate to an understanding that we ourselves are ultimately made of particles, moving up through chemicals and cells and so on, and that ultimately “the self” (roughly, consciousness) and what it does is the emergent result of the physical interactions of our most elementary parts, then we lack free will in the traditional sense. Anyway, that is VERY short, not great explanation of hard determinism. (It should also be mentioned that invoking particles isn’t necessary, as most of our insight into behavior derives from the cellular level). Also understand that it is not simply a logical argument, but that it is borne out by evidence especially from cognitive neuroscience (but also other disciplines). As for the more philosophical question of what such a situation would “mean,” there are plenty of ways out of the quandary you perceive that physical determinism would make action meaningless. I could, I guess, just cite to you Nietzsche’s entire philosophy as a viable means of escaping the “passive nihilism” such an insight might engender. But there are also schools of thought that argue that even an underlying determinism doesn’t eliminate all “choice,” they just redefine what a meaningful sense of choice is. The best author for this viewpoint is Daniel Dennett, whose works I highly recommend if you are interested in exploring the issue a bit further. I personally don’t subscribe to life or our actions having “meaning” in any of these senses. I do, however, recognize the cognitive game we… Read more »

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 7:15 pm

Thank you for that. Interesting. I found a lecture on youtube about it I’ll try to listen to when I get a chance.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 9:56 am

There is no such thing as a magical sky fairy who creates things and grants wishes when you talk to him. Sorry.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:15 am

To declare there is no God, that’s bold. Almost a leap of faith if you will.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 10:28 am

I can see how someone profoundly ignorance of science would think so. Such a silly comment in light of the opposing epistemology being grounded in an ancient work of fantastical fiction that was written 200,000 AFTER the emergence of homo sapien, a million years after homo erectus. I guess the billions of individuals who lived prior to the authors of that book just got fucked.

Anthony Stratton
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:49 am

Guys this is getting personal. Lets dial it back please.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Anthony Stratton
02/03/2019 10:54 am

Wasn’t trying to be personal, just pointing out that belief in a higher being has become untenable in 2019. Given the accessibility of knowledge and information to everyone in the developed world, to believe in such mystical notions is willful ignorance.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:00 am

No it’s not, and being dismissive of those that do is hateful. If someone wants to believe in God, let them. If you don’t, cool whatever man. To each their own. But don’t belittle and make people think their lives are meaningless, just because you don’t share their beliefs.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:05 am

Lives don’t have to be meaningless just because there is no god. That’s another conceit of religion.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:22 am

No it’s not conceit. You are missing my point. I’m not arguing the rights and wrongs of religion with you. I’m pointing out the weakness of your argument and how the way you are presenting it feels to those who believe.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:11 am

Where was your outrage when Quack (fitting username) called Dave a douche for his beliefs? Or were you one the people who greened him for it?

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:20 am

Nope. I’m against that as well. I don’t like either side being hateful. It’s counter productive.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 11:09 am

I’m the only atheist in my entire family. They, too, are willfully ignorant on the matter. It’s not personal. Someone might choose to TAKE it personally, but that’s really not my issue.

BoJest
BoJest
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:12 am

I believe the point of “getting personal” is that you keep calling people that believe in God as being ignorant.

EAFOX
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 11:18 am

Let us change the subject to what we can agree on – Patrick Mahomes is the new GOAT inherent or Bob Sutton sucks.

Your choice.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 11:24 am

Look, I’m going to defend reason in a thread where someone got called a douche for daring to suggest god might not give a shit about football. It’s no secret that atheism is a marginalized belief system in an insanely hypocritical and retrogressive United States, but a forum like this should be policed equally. These personal attack warnings should have happened right after Quack posted.

EAFOX
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:54 am

Saying it once or even twice is cool and within your rights. Repeating it over and over – for either side is a waste of time. Debate is great but it is easy to tell that you are riled up. Nothing good happens when we are mad.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  BoJest
02/03/2019 11:15 am

I am ignorant of Far East Culture. I am ignorant of the relations between all those Kardashians and Jenner. I am ignorant of the rules of soccer. I am ignorant of functional architecture. These are just a few things I am ignorant of, and given that knowledge of them is available, I am willfully ignorant of them. See how that works?

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:13 am

And that’s the problem with society. People are unwilling to be empathetic of the others side. You don’t have to agree with them. But going “i’m right. you’re wrong. And you are stupid for not seeing it” is never going to end well.

Leaf
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 11:10 am

I wasn’t hoping to be the voice of reason, as I’m not really saying either side is correct. But trying to calm a religious argument is about as easy as 70lb teenage girl trying to stop a charging rhino.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 12:11 pm

For the record, I wasn’t calling Dave a douche.

dave9600
dave9600
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/04/2019 8:25 am

For the record, I didn’t think you were.

WTF_Chiefs
WTF_Chiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:11 am

I am not what any person would call “religious” and I’m not big on the whole “Is there a God?” discussion………but, where is the science and knowledge the totally 100% discredits a person’s belief…….I’m a fairly pragmatic person that has yet to be shown “proof” one way or the other so I would love to be shown how your “untendable” take is any more certain than a “believers”

Im not taking sides I just have never understood how someone can be so definitive when they have as much “proof” as the other side of the arguement……..

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 11:12 am

I literally just mentioned in the conversation that there is no such thing as 100% certainty, except, of course, with most religious people, who are certain there is a god.

EAFOX
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:14 am

AND so what if they do. Not hurting you by any stretch of the imagination. As Tony said, this is getting way to personal – let people believe what they want and move on.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 11:43 am

“where is the science and knowledge the totally 100% discredits a person’s belief”

This 100% isn’t possible. Never will be. Which is why I am NOT Atheist. I am firmly Agnostic. Do I believe in God? Can’t say I do, anymore. Do I know he doesn’t exist? Not for sure & since you can’t prove a negative, I’m stuck with Agnostic. I can’t tell you that God does NOT exist, but I can tell you I believe the chances are very, very slim using the basics of Science and Reasoning

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 11:49 am

Atheists are just bolder agnostics. Not hedging our bets.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:10 pm

Well… I’m of the mind that Atheists & True Believers are two sides of the same coin. Like I said above, I can’t prove he doesn’t exist. In fact, I have a far better chance of proving he DOES exist than proving he doesn’t. All he has to do is stop by and say “Yep, I’m here” and it’s settled. Of course, after lots of scrutiny since, ya know, false prophets & all. I will never, ever prove he isn’t there, because maybe I missed him hiding under a toadstool. Point is, an Agnostic retains an open mind. Atheists & True Believers have, for the most part – don’t want to get too sweeping here – closed theirs to alternate possibilities. Does God exist? Maybe, but I highly doubt it.
Good conversation, btw. I’m enjoy everyone’s views.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 12:14 pm

Yeah, it’s a totally fine conversation. It’s always the non-believers who are going to be accused of being aggressive and closed minded, regardless of how reasonable and soft spoken they’re being. Unfortunately.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:41 pm

FYI you’re not being called Agressive and closed-minded because you’re a non believer. It’s because you act that way
– coming from an atheist

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:53 pm

Through many years I’ve found that it matters not the way you act with MOST (not all) religious people. As soon as you say “there is no god” you are vilified no end. I probably won’t live to see it, but some day reason will prevail. For now, yes, when it’s called for I will stand up for reason as vehemently as religious people stand up for their beliefs, and I hope you, as an atheist, do the same, because the world needs it.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:13 pm

There is a line and a difference though in how you go about it. I believe there is no god for such and such reasons is fine. Stating your beliefs is fine. But calling people ignorant for not believing what you believe isn’t. Religion exists for a reason. Arguing against it to prevent genocide, war, and other atrocities in commendable. Arguing against it when it brings a community together to build someone a home and such isn’t.
My involvement in this argument wasn’t too make you change your viewpoints but rather how you approach them. And I’m sorry for my round about way of discussing it. I understand why you feel the way you do with the recent political climate. I really do. But it’s important not to lose sight of all the reasons people believe what they do.
I’m also sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had with religious people. I’ve been lucky enough to have many great relationships and understandings with people of faith

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 1:28 pm

I think people are actually just more sensitive these days than ever before to how intellectual conversations work, and how arguments are properly put together. People’s hackles actually raise more when you present a well-reasoned argument against their beliefs than when you ACTUALLY personally attack them. But that’s another conversation. As I stated previously, I am willfully ignorant of a great number of issues, as we all necessarily are given the vast amount of information in the world. It should not be considered an insult to say one who believes in god is willfully ignorant of science, especially if it is true. I have yet to have a religious person in one of these conversations begin to discuss the finer points of any scientific discipline, and why it isn’t incompatible with their belief system. It’s fine if you don’t study science in your free time (I happen to), but if you don’t you shouldn’t be offended when somebody calls you ignorant of it. I am equally ignorant of all the things I don’t study.

Berserker
Berserker
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:12 pm

Spoken like a true believer.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Berserker
02/03/2019 2:25 pm

See my reply to your comment above, the one that betrays a lack of understanding of atheism.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 12:30 pm

But to your more important point: I believe you are either misunderstanding atheism or doing it injustice. Atheism is about a principled approach to knowledge and evidence. Its about extrapolating from knowledge and evidence an existential value system. It’s a kind of science-based way of life. It does NOT mean you aren’t open-minded. I think it was Dawkins who said if evidence suddenly appeared for the existence of god the most interested people would be scientists, the vast majority of whom are atheists.

Furthermore, I would try to persuade you to move from agnosticism toward atheism for practical reasons. This country especially needs a bolder opposition to religion than it currently has. So, so many awful things through the ages have resulted from belief in religion’s absurdities, and that continues today with the denial of marginalized groups’ civil rights, women’s oppression, environmental destruction, etc. The ideology of the political right is simply a subset of religious belief, and it needs to be combatted with everything reasonable people have at their disposal. The agnostic, “well maybe your right, we can never know” shrug is not helpful.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:27 pm

Wouldn’t the intelligent and scientific thing to do be hedging your bet? Since in the end being right ends you nothing but being wrong (even if it’s .00000001%) has negative consequences?

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:35 pm

Nope. I’m a gambler. That comment was also tongue-in-cheek. And I believe agnosticism is something of a cop-out, both existentially and intellectually.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:53 am

His point is that science doesn’t know everything. It hasn’t proved religion is fake. But because it hasn’t proved its real either, you are antagonistic toward those who believe it’s teachings.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 10:59 am

No responsible scientist will ever tell you there is such thing as 100% certainty (a trait skeptics DON’T share with the VERY certain of themselves religious communities). However, we will believe in the most likely truth, based on tangible evidence. There is more evidence for the fact of evolution than that the chair you’re sitting in actually exists, for example. Faced with that kind knowledge, it becomes increasingly untenable to believe in mysticism.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:03 am

Really? Not all religious people are anti evolution. Or even science for that matter. You are stereotyping. And using a preconceived bias is anti scientific reasoning. So on actually you are being kind of hypocritical here.

WTF_Chiefs
WTF_Chiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:21 am

This is what I don’t understand about this side of the arguement…….Most agreed at on time that Earth was center of the universe or the Earth was flat or any other # of accepted “facts”……New evidence/understanding happens everyday but even with all our breakthroughs, it hasn’t been disproven

Individual human beings literally create world’s(inside running computers) all the time but it would be impossible to think that we ourselves might not be subject of same thing on a grander(maybe not) scale?

Leaf
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 11:27 am

Actually there are scientific theories of reality being a construct of some sort. It’s real mind blowing philosophical stuff.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  WTF_Chiefs
02/03/2019 11:30 am

The theory that the universe might be in some scientists Petri dish in some grander universe beyond it is absolutely something reasonable people have considered. But even in that case, our “god” wouldn’t resemble anything like the one(s) we are told about in any of our religious texts. Moreover, even if that’s the case, there will never be a way to find out, so while it may be fun to think about, doing so contributes little to knowledge.

WTF_Chiefs
WTF_Chiefs
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:32 am

How is the continued seeking to further understand something that is not currently understood not contributing to gathering of knowledge? Also, man was never going to fly like the birds, man was never going to land on the moon, man was never……..

I love the continued search for knowledge, just not the thought that we will ever quit attaining it

Also, in the earlier post by Quack, I do not believe he was calling poster a douche but sarcastically referring to Pat as a douche for “Thanking God”

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:36 am

Ah now that’s an interesting debate. But I disagree with it not contributing to knowledge. Philosophy is important and can lead many breakthroughs.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 11:40 am

Philosophy’s contemporary utility is in defining the right questions for science to ask. Metaphysics is dead. Existentialism is still important on an individual level, but isn’t terribly much geared toward the progression of human knowledge. That’s NOT to say philosophy’s role isn’t important (hell, I pursued it through a Masters degree), but it IS the handmaiden of the superior epistemology, science.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 9:59 am

Same goes for anyone who has any kind of success in life. Imagining that there is a magical sky fairy out there looking out for your interests and responsible For your successes is simultaneously very arrogant and self-demeaning.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  workingmansdead
02/03/2019 10:25 am

Arrogance is believing such a being would give half a fuck about you, especially if you’re not one the world’s downtrodden.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 10:43 am

I think you miss what people are thanking God for. It’s not for helping them win. It’s thanking him for the talents he bestowed on them. And since Jesus taught us to thank God for all things, thanking him in this manner isn’t a slight toward the less fortunate, or a suggestion he cares more about millionaire sports figures. It’s just being grateful for what has been given to you.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 2:17 pm

Amen!

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:51 am

Do you subscribe to multiverse theory? Where each decision/action one makes creates two opposite realities? There’s plenty of evidence surrounding it with Quantum mechanics.
If that’s the case there would be billions upon billions of universes where there is a god and he/she)it does indeed give a fuck about Mahomes.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:00 pm

First of all, you missed about 100 logical steps to get from a multiverse to a caring god. Not sure where you’d even start to justify that leap.

Second, there is not “plenty of evidence” for a multiverse. The multiverse theory, which I do in fact think is compelling (though not as much as other explanations), is one of many theories employed to possibly EXPLAIN the observable effects of the quantum world. It itself is an explanatory concept (and one of many) designed to account for otherwise baffling quantum phenomena. it is not something we are generally seeking evidence for in order to prove.

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:21 pm

Jdk, if you took the word “Science” out of what you’re writing, and put in the word “Jesus”….you’d realize that you sound exactly like those you despise, criticize, and rail against.

Friendly advice – take or leave it: Consider logging off. This isn’t a discussion anymore. This is a conversion effort on your part to evangelize your Non-God to those who believe in A God, and it’s not helping anyone (them….or especially, you).

I’ll see my fat Breeland Speaks ass out now.

Consider my suggestion, please.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  go_saleaumua
02/03/2019 12:49 pm

Would love for you to contribute to the conversation.

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:54 pm

Nah. I question how what I’ve got to say will be perceived (for one) and I haven’t found online sports blogs the venue to share my particular spirituo-scientific perspectives (for another). Context is hard to share digitally, and to me, religion (in particular) calls for some context. Thus the likely perception gap.

The way the discussion’s framed out today tells me my taeks aren’t needed at this point.

Appreciate the offer.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:39 pm

I think the point you keep on missing is that science and belief in a higher power aren’t mutually exclusive. For a guy as well-versed at science (see what I did there?) as you seem to be, you probably already know that Darwin himself believed in God. Don’t think he’d appreciate being labeled as ‘willfully ignorant.’

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 2:47 pm

That is, actually, a falsity that has been perpetuated over the years by religious apologists. Darwin did not, in fact, believe in god in the way you imagine, though he was something like a deist. And in any event, I’m not sure why Darwin’s belief or unbelief is relevant. For your edification:

“The deathbed conversion story is a myth started by a profiteering woman who never actually met Darwin, as far as can be told (Moore 1994). The legend is still repeated by fundamentalist Christian preachers and radio hosts, which prompted Darwin scholar James Moore to write his book The Darwin Legend.”

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/9/800/248702

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:51 pm

You still avoid my initial point. I think of science as code, and God as the programmer. Tell me why both can’t exist.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 2:58 pm

Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in star/galaxy formation? Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? Do you believe in the statistical probability (near certainty) that other life in the universe exists outside of earth? If you do believe in these and other things we have come to know through science, AND you still believe in a higher being, you are a radical kind of new age deist. That’s totally fine, but it’s also not compatible with any teachings of organized religions of which I am aware. But you CAN’T tell me that you believe in all of those things AND the Bible’s creation story. You CAN’T tell me you believe in all those things and believe that god made you.

Just one of a great number of possible responses to your question of why both can’t exist. Nova provided another in response to one of Leaf’s comments.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 3:34 pm

I do believe in all of those things actually and I do subscribe to the Christian faith, though probably not in the way you’re used to seeing. I think your main gripe is against fundamentalist christianity and the literal interpretation of the bible. I view it more in a metaphorical sense than others. Evolution is a mechanism, one I’d argue was created by God. So yeah I think we were ultimately created by God, but not in a genie kind of way. I love science. I look up at the stars and am in awe. Science to me only further illustrates what an amazing God we have.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  QuackTastic
02/03/2019 3:40 pm

We could use this comment as a springboard to a much larger conversation, if you want. I am, however, also content to limit my response to a respectful “fair enough.”

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 4:01 pm

Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in star/galaxy formation? ….. If you do believe in these and other things we have come to know through science, AND you still believe in a higher being, you are a radical kind of new age deist.

Yes, I do – and nope, I am not.

That’s totally fine, but it’s also not compatible with any teachings of organized religions of which I am aware.

Then you, sir, ought to read up on some of these other expressions of Christendom. (Or Judaism, Bahaism, other faiths ‘of the book’).

Now you’re seeing why I told you my hot taeks on such things weren’t welcome here…some folks can’t handle a different perspective on faith than what they’ve experienced themselves.

But you CAN’T tell me that you believe in all of those things AND the Bible’s creation story.

Believe how? That a man’s “7 days” and God’s (“god’s”) “7 days” might be billions on billions of man-years different? That metaphor and simile can communicate truths that are as old as the atom itself? That something can be 100% God (god) breathed, 100% truthful….and yet may be to some degree literary, meant to make larger, literal points with Eternal consequences?

/shakes head

Sorry Jdk. There’s a lot more happening than just your little “no god” party in the world at large. But what do I know, I’m just some fat fuck.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  go_saleaumua
02/03/2019 4:20 pm

Oh boy. So many contradictory statements in so short a post. Yeah, you were right from the get-go. You and I need not have a conversation.

go_saleaumua
go_saleaumua
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 4:32 pm

Religion isn’t supposed to be science. Science isn’t supposed to be religion. That’s basically where I come from on the whole thing.

Honestly, this whole thread has not been a good read through.

I know you think I’m a dumb piece of shit at the moment–which is fine, I’ll “take the L.” Unfortunately you came off looking a lot worse for the wear, as well.

Sorry to bother you.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  go_saleaumua
02/03/2019 7:16 pm

I’m not one to care much how I come out looking. I enjoyed the conversation I had with those who earnestly participated. I’m not interested in the opinions of people who can’t handle having their beliefs challenged without throwing a tantrum.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 7:55 pm

It’s one thing to challenge one’s beliefs, it’s another to lead with ‘if you believe in God you’re just willfully ignorant.’ Not only is that setting up an environment for no productive discourse to occur, it’s intellectually dishonest.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 5:56 pm

Actually you are completely wrong in that assumption. I grew up Mormon. I was taught from a young age that everything God did followed the natural laws of the universe. So evolution? Yep. 13.8 billion year old universe? Why not. 4.5 billion year old Earth? The Christians that actually believe in a 6000 year old Earth are just a vocal minority. Life elsewhere in the universe? It’s impossible for there not to be. Last time I checked Mormonism was considered an organised religion.

The problem with the bible creation story is that is vague and there’s no basis for comparison. That story is one chapter. That’s it. Even if you subscribe (i use you in a general sense here) to the a day in God’s time is 1000 years, that’s 6000 years in two pages. There is a lot not being said no matter your belief. Who’s to say things didn’t unfold exactly as science has determined it to.

Now I’m not trying to convert you. Personally I have my own issues. I’m just pointing out that science and religion isn’t as exclusive as you think. There are some, and by the sound of your posts most of those you’ve had experiences with, that think they are, but not all.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 7:23 pm

Is that the same Mormonism that teaches that Jesus caught a flight to the US before ascending to heaven to bury tablets in Joseph Smith’s backyard? The same one that for most of its history considered black people unworthy of its priesthood because their souls were tarnished? <— While that's a joke (settle down, religious justice warriors), it's undeniably what your sect of belief holds/held. I'm glad god changed his mind on the latter.

More substantively, I understand that there are religious people who have some regard for science. But I would submit that it's a monumental philosophical task to reconcile the two into a coherent worldview, and I haven't seen it done convincingly by even the most celebrated authorities on the subject.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:06 pm

If you want to debate the perceived issues with Mormonism, that’s a separate argument. My point that not all organised religion is as anti science as you seem to think it is, is still 100% valid.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Leaf
02/03/2019 7:29 pm

Also, you may not be amendable to such suggestions coming from me, but to a thinking religious person like yourself who has expressed some interest in philosophy, I would highly recommend reading some Kierkegaard. He and Dostoevsky remain, for me, the most formidable Christian intellectuals.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 11:13 pm

I’ll check them out. As I’ve started elsewhere, I don’t know everything. I’m not against expanding my view.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:22 pm

For being the scientific guy you claim to be, you do seem to struggle with Critical listening.
You must know the term sharping right? It’s highlighting, emphasizing, and embellishing aspects of a message.
Multiverse theory is a hypothesis used to explain things science can’t yet. But it remains a distinct scientific possibly. The 100 steps I missed? Infinite universes with infinite possibilities starting far before human existence. Atoms colliding in a way to create a god like being. (Of course this is a rare occurrence, but with infinite scenarios it’s bound to happen)

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:33 pm

You must have read a quick news article on quantum theory and imagine you’re making a point here. Judging by these comments, you’re going to have to A LOT more reading if you want to eventually have a coherent conversation about multiverse theory.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 12:39 pm

I’ll admit I don’t fully comprehend multiverse theory because it’s extremely complex and consistently shifting, but I’m always willing to learn more about it. I don’t just learn about one thing and then stop. Learning is about consistently gathering new information.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:46 pm

It was Richard Feynman who said something along the line of if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t. Nobody does, and I’m not claiming I do. I am pointing out, though, that you can’t just take a given quantum theory and use it to conclude anything you want. Multiverse theory in no way implies the existence of a god, which is why I was saying you would have to make a very detailed an complex argument to get from one point to another. Not that it couldn’t [logically] be done, but that you hadn’t (and to be fair couldn’t in this medium) even approximated it with your post, which is why I was dumbfounded by the conclusion.

NovaChiefs
NovaChiefs
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:27 pm

Wha…? Even if there are umpteen billion different universes, each one would have the same probability of needing to have this same conversation. At no point “would” there be a God in any of them. There MIGHT be. That’s what possibility means. It’s possible that there is a universe out there somewhere in which I am as good as Patrick Mahomes is in this one. It’s possible, It’s not a given. It’s not a given that there “would be” such a universe. It’s more likely that, because of scientific & natural laws, I’d develop into the same unathletic shlub in alternate universes as I did here. God is no more, no less likely to exist in these other universes, either.

Mitko
Reply to  NovaChiefs
02/03/2019 12:36 pm

Shake a bottle of water for eternity and the atoms will eventually line up the way they started. Eventually every combination would. If multiverse theory is accurate (big if), then a god like being exists in one. The probability is in which one?

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 12:48 pm

You need to define “god-like” being. And this kind of Nietzschean eternal return does not mean that every possible combination will happen. In fact, the idea of an eternal return would necessarily be to the exclusion of an infinite number of “possibilities” (though they wouldn’t even then rightly be conceived of as “possible”) because it assumes that all of the universe’s particles began, will end, and will begin again on a determined path.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 2:31 pm

Jdklks, the problem with this whole discussion is you are trying to score debate points while others are more concerned with eternal salvation, hope for mankind, etc. I hope for your sake that you embrace your savior Jesus Christ. I don’t like you at all, but God loves you more than you can imagine.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mahomesisgreat
02/03/2019 2:37 pm

Haha, is his never ending love for me the same reason he is going to banish me to a fiery eternity?

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 1:19 pm

Thanks Dave for sparking this conversation. It was quite enjoyable. Thanks as well to the conversation’s participants, especially Leaf and Nova. In spite of what others think of it, or me as a result, I found it edifying. I’m sure hard feelings abound (they shouldn’t, but it is inevitable), but that’s the price of sometimes having conversations more important than football. I would encourage this kind of exchange more often on here, in fact. Especially in the offseason. A non-football section on this site where users could create topics for threads would be sweeeeeet. No topic off limits, and of course moderated for civility.

Mitko
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:24 pm

If you ever want to talk about or if you find new info on Quantum mechanics hit me up. It’s completely annoying trying to figure out which scientific journals are current and the flavor of the week. And what current theories there are.

Jdklks
Jdklks
Reply to  Mitko
02/03/2019 1:40 pm

Well I wouldn’t start with scientific journals, which usually tend toward the cutting edge and are defined more by their technicality than readability, especially for someone just scratching the surface. Also, unless you have a google scholar account or equivalent access, you’d end up spending a ton of money just to access the articles. A good place to start is Kenneth W. Ford’s “The Quantum World.” It is a great introduction to what kinds of phenomena quantum mechanics is dealing with, and helps to understand why something like a multiverse as an explanatory concept is even something that would be considered. I would, however, caution that Ford seems a bit too enthusiastic about the more mystical (and unlikely) explanations than he should be in an introductory text. That may be a matter of taste, of course, BUT if you go too far in that direction you’ll risk treading in quackery.

After that, you’ll have a good idea of exactly what interests you about quantum mechanics, and you can find plenty of popular science books written about all of it. These of course deal with the conceptual models, not the underlying equations that have led us to these discoveries (which is more like what you’ll find in professional journals). If you are a math junkie (or more likely genius), I definitely encourage you to eventually move on to more technical journals. Having that base is really the only way to understand quantum theory. The rest of us are just endlessly fascinated with the conceptual results.

Leaf
Reply to  Jdklks
02/03/2019 1:27 pm

No hard feelings here. I enjoy a good debate. I fully acknowledge that I don’t know everything and I can learn something from people with different idea than my own.

Mahomesisgreat
Mahomesisgreat
Reply to  dave9600
02/03/2019 1:41 pm

As Christians, we thank God our Father for all the blessings in our lives. He loves you whether you acknowledge that or not.

208
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x