@Cajuneer
- Thread starter BUDmountain
- Start date
The number of monotheistic religions. The difference between public and personal. The generic nature of “God.”
but.. i don't think Dabo was intending to be generic in his use of God.. and my only basic point remains.. which is, as a leader of a multicultural, multireligious, secular organization (i.e., Clemson is public and not a private religious-based institution), it struck me as odd that he would sell his program in that way since it would narrow his target market.
I guess i can give an example to help illustrate my point.. Let's say I run a global sales organization with people spread throughout all regions of the world.. some Christian, some atheist, some Muslim, some Buddhist, and perhaps some with other religious beliefs.. I would not think it appropriate for me to represent "our sales organization is built on the principles of God" especially if I was known as a devout Christian who frequently promoted my personal beliefs on religion..
Wouldn't I run the risk of offending at least some of the non-Christian members of my team, as well as customers and potential prospects, by me taking that stance and making that public proclamation? That was the basic point i was trying to make, although obviously not very effectively
you honestly believe he was using the generic term god and not the God of the Christian/Jewish faith? He's promoted his Christian beliefs before in the context of his program, why would he be generic now?
And, what if I'm a player (subordinate), recruit (prospect) or fan (customer) of Clemson and don't believe in any gods at all.. is he saying this isn't the program for me, and if so is that OK?
He’s openly a Christian. If he wasn’t trying to be specific why not mention Jesus?
Dabo Swinney: 'Players of any faith or no faith at all are welcome'
Where it's coming from. Everyone should get their say. However as long as non religious players are being treated the same then why push it.
Because.
ffrf.org
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’
Because.
Religion entrenched in Clemson football - Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s complaint to Clemson University over serious entanglements between its football program and religion created a...
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’
in general I am not really in disagreement...i.e., as long as he doesn't discriminate which it sounds like he doesn't.. That said, as a guy w/ a sales and leadership background, it still strikes me as odd to take the risk of offending part of your target audience..Where it's coming from. Everyone should get their say. However as long as non religious players are being treated the same then why push it.
Because.
Religion entrenched in Clemson football - Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s complaint to Clemson University over serious entanglements between its football program and religion created a...
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’
Maybe people aren't as offended to have a conversation as some special interest groups would have you to believe.
you could be right.. perhaps i am jaded because our HR drills into us to be sensitive to religions around the world, various religious holidays, etc, etc, etc...
Well nobody wants to get sued with all these special interests groups and their lawyers running around.
Or maybe people should look into who controls the business they work for and the H.R. department.
Last edited:
Where it's coming from. Everyone should get their say. However as long as non religious players are being treated the same then why push it.
Because.
Religion entrenched in Clemson football - Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s complaint to Clemson University over serious entanglements between its football program and religion created a...
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’
Might find the answer in here.
No Dabo isn't perfect. None of us are. But there's a reason they don't want anyone to have a conversation about it.
i may regret my first ever post on the OT board, but here goes..
To me the basic issue here is epistemology. What you believe and exactly why do you believe.
Do you care if your beliefs are true, supported by demonstrative facts?
If you were born in India would you have the same deep belief in Vishnu?
Im saying that there are deep cultural biases due to(I can’t think of a less offensive term, sorry) indoctrination
The scary part to me is if people can be convinced of some supreme entity without real evidence and then submit to that entity’s rules, people suffer
Hence the multiple atrocities committed in the name of religion
okey, ready for incoming. LGM
To me the basic issue here is epistemology. What you believe and exactly why do you believe.
Do you care if your beliefs are true, supported by demonstrative facts?
If you were born in India would you have the same deep belief in Vishnu?
Im saying that there are deep cultural biases due to(I can’t think of a less offensive term, sorry) indoctrination
The scary part to me is if people can be convinced of some supreme entity without real evidence and then submit to that entity’s rules, people suffer
Hence the multiple atrocities committed in the name of religion
okey, ready for incoming. LGM
I care if my beliefs are based on truth and demonstrable evidence.
India is a multi-religious culture. I’ve taught seminary course in Bible in India to hundreds of pastors.
Indoctrination: I think you underestimate the ability of others to think freely and form their own worldviews. Which is growing faster, Islam in the West or Christianity in the East? It’s the latter. In the most closed countries on earth, where conversion is a capital offense, Christian is rapidly growing.
As I stated on the other the most murderous regimes in the history of humanity were atheistic. Further, religion if rarely in history the prime reason for conflict and resulting atrocities. Expansion is the motive. I have a degree in archaeology and I’m glad to discuss this further is you like.
Let me ask you some questions:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What explanation do you have for the existence of time, space, and matter?
Why is the universe governed by immutable laws of physics?
How did the universe become fine tuned?
What caused the existence of human conscience?
What is the origin of objective morals and values?
How do you explain the experience of billions throughout the centuries who claim to have had a personal relationship with God?
@NYC_Eer
my answer to each of your questions is:
I can’t say I definitively know the answer, can you?
You’ve coke to the wrong place for open and honest debate. You’ve unwittingly stumbled on right wing Twitter/QAnon. Good luck.
That’s the response I expected. The LOL response—the universal sign of defeat.
I would be interested in hearing your answers to each question then, and to understand the proof (scientific and/or even empirical). I respect your personal faith and belief, and your right to have it... but to say you know the answers when humanity has struggled to answer these questions forever speaks to a mighty high belief you have in your own brain.
If you noticed both gentlemen are have a civil discussion on this topic which shows their intelligence. Please let them continue
you obviously don't recognize an honest difference of opinion between 2 intelligent adults......first off you don't act like an adult and you certainly arent intelligent.......so just sit down , shut up and try to learn something instead of being a dumbass child molesting sheeple
I guess my answer is simple and I am not gonna bash at you. The evidence of a supreme being is all over nature. Who anyone calls that being is going to be based on their culture. I have a lot less respect for people who don't believe in a God than people who believe in a different name than I do because I cannot fathom how someone cannot look at nature where scientific law tells us that nature trends toward chaos but somehow there is order and where did that order come from if moving toward chaos is natural.
Men are naturally evil. It shouldn't surprise anyone that evil people will take advantage of any angle they can find to gain power. Religion, money, confidence.
I don't think I have ever seen a person who brings less to a forum complain more about what others bring.
Other than fantasy about gay sex and LOL what have you added here?
@Raven Shaddock referencing your BL post:
is the Creator called Brahma, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, God or something else? same Creator or different ones? does it even matter as long as you believe?
@dave i agree with the wonderment of looking around at nature and the universe and can understand humans coming to the conclusion in their own minds that there must be some type of all-powerful creative and/or evolutionary force at play..
IMO human instinct is to try to make sense of that by assigning that to a 'god' type of force.. but to say you definitively know that and there is one true God at the source? I struggle to intellectually get there in my own mind, but i appreciate that others have and it gives them comfort and strength... but to me that is faith and belief and not factual proof (which may be unobtainable, i get that)
I guess I don't understand why everything has to be proven. I think cynicism and questioning things is good but I also realize I am limited by my experiences and we are all limited to some degree by the extent of our intellect. The human brain is probably working at 15% its capacity unless you live in NYC and then it is half that. There could be significantly more intelligent life forms in our universe than us so what we know and what we believe is always going to be limited.
I don't have a problem with people believing differently than me especially if they have thoughtful logical disagreements. It just seems like when it comes to God and religion or lack thereof everyone all thinks their belief is the one that is oppressed and some people act on that by mocking the others.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
- The universe is a contingent thing.
- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.
- The universe began to exist.
- If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
- Therefore, the universe has a transcendent cause.
- If God did not exist, the applicability of the immutable universal laws of physics would be just a happy coincidence.
- The applicability of the immutable universal laws of physics is not just a happy coincidence.
- Therefore, God exists.
How did the universe become fine tuned?
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.
- If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
- But intentional states of consciousness do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
- Objective moral values and duties exist.
- But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
- I have a personal relationship with God.
- Therefore, I know God exists.
thanks for the considered, thoughtful and even insightful answer. A few questions or comments:
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.
- The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- Therefore, God exists.
- Therefore, I know God exists.
Appreciate the discussion. You have obviously given this considerable thought and I respect your depth of conviction.
I'm not sure this is what "everybody" means, or perhaps i am not fully understanding what you mean by transcendent (divine?), personal being.
When discussing a metaphysical supreme being, by necessity, this being must be transcendent--beyond the physical realm.
What is the basis for ruling out physical necessity or chance? Isn't it at least remotely possible they could play a role?
Scientific research has concluded that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The values of these constants are independent of the laws of nature. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities which define the initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate – for example, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the universe. Now these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance of nature would be destroyed, and life would not exist.
There are three live explanatory options for this extraordinary fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design.
Physical necessity is not, however, a plausible explanation, because the finely-tuned constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. Therefore, they are not physically necessary.
The problem with fine-tuning be due to chance is that the odds of all the constants and quantities’ randomly falling into the incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range are just so infinitesimal that they cannot be reasonably accepted. Therefore the proponents of the chance explanation have been forced to postulate the existence of a ‘World Ensemble’ of other universes, preferably infinite in number and randomly ordered, so that life-permitting universes like ours would appear by chance somewhere in the Ensemble. Not only is this hypothesis, to borrow Richard Dawkins’ phrase, “an unparsimonious extravagance,” it faces an insuperable objection. By far, the most probable observable universes in a World Ensemble would be worlds in which a single brain fluctuated into existence out of the vacuum and observed its otherwise empty world. So, if our world were just a random member of the World Ensemble, by all probability we ought to be having observations like that. Since we don’t, that strongly disconfirms the World Ensemble hypothesis. So chance is also not a good explanation.
On the next to last two bullets you make this conclusion, but it feels like a bit of a logic leap to me, colored by your personal belief system (nothing wrong with that).
As to the logical leap, the syllogisms are both sound and valid. To determine this we would have to discuss each one in detail much as I did with your question above. As for colored by my personal belief system, my personal belief system is based on my rationally examined experience. I have a personal relationship with my wife. Therefore, I know my wife exists. Similarly, I have a personal relationship with God. Therefore, I know God exists.
I did.. at the 1:10 mark i observed what appeared to be a finely tuned system operating in a specific and recurring sequence (almost gear like in appearance).. but hey, it's all a bit over my head. You have obviously studied and researched this to a depth beyond mine.. which i commend.
Also upon reading your clarifications and answers to my other questions (thank you for taking the time btw) it led me to another question..
You make a compelling case for the existence of some divine-like creative force involved in the creation and evolution of the universe and all life within it.... unless it's all just a video game or SIM we are living in which i haven't completely ruled out
... but that case to me is for the generic 'god' and is different than making the case that the Christian faith, vs. all others, is the 'correct' view or belief system.. Couldn't the divine creator be more aligned with other religions or belief systems and not that of Christianity? Help me reconcile to this?
You’ll find that Cajun, while he does like to mix it up, is in fact one of the most intelligent people you’ll come across on these topics. He’s studied, in depth, the world over. He’s a bit like Indiana Jones, but without the bull whip and hat.I did.. at the 1:10 mark i observed what appeared to be a finely tuned system operating in a specific and recurring sequence (almost gear like in appearance).. but hey, it's all a bit over my head. You have obviously studied and researched this to a depth beyond mine.. which i commend.
Also upon reading your clarifications and answers to my other questions (thank you for taking the time btw) it led me to another question..
You make a compelling case for the existence of some divine-like creative force involved in the creation and evolution of the universe and all life within it.... unless it's all just a video game or SIM we are living in which i haven't completely ruled out
Help me reconcile to this?
I think he might have a mancush on you. I had you pegged as an older straighter version of kid macgyver.Go on.
Similar threads
