Drunkard

Psysk is expected to play on the left. Hopefully he gets paired with the veteran Bogosian and Ristolainen gets paired with Gorges. If that happens I'm not sure which one of those pairs would be considered top pairing but they'd seem faily even Psysk Bogosian Gorges Ristolainen Weber Franson Colaiacovo That's my guess for how it shakes out at even strength.

I used to be more militant in my stance against religion but over the years I've learned to pick my battles more. The references to God in the pledge and on money used to bother me but in the grand scheme of things they don't really matter until. Faith based legislation bothers me tremendously though so I choose to put my focus there. The beer and hockey conversation sounds good too. Cheers to you, sir.

I agree completely. It's also concerning that when you believe the rapture is coming soon and that God gave you dominion over all the plants and animals that you overuse resources, pollute on a catastrophic level, and don't act as a good steward of the environment. I saw a poll a few years back that showed a majority of believers not only were sure of the rapture but they expected it to come during their lifetime. That to me is arrogance parading as false humble piousness. No wonder they pretend global warming doesn't exist and pollution isn't a problem.

Neo, I'm happy to oblige, sir. I disagree with it on a personal level and it does violate the separation of church and state but it doesn't really bother me. If I remember right those slogans were added to the pledge and currency when the nation was clinging to the Bible and fearing nuclear war with the Russians back in the 50's but I may be off in my memory of history class. It wasn't mentioned but the ritual of swearing on the bible in court bothers me much less these days as well. I'm much more concerned with ID being passed off as science and people using their faith as an excuse to legislate their version of morality on those who believe differently through restricting birth control, discriminating against gay people, and passing things like sin taxes, dry counties, and not being able to buy beer before noon on Sundays and things of that nature. I wish religious people could just be content in believing that all of us sinners are just going to burn in hell than for them to expect the government to pass laws (and sometimes succeed) that force their personal believe systems on my fellow heathens. I hope that answers your question but if you have any other questions I'll be happy to try and elaborate.

Maybe your quote of the poster got merged in with some of your own words then because from what I read of your post #4537 you basically brought up that the story pissed you off and then you brought up the dummy accounts on reddit and espn from the PR firm and that his quote seems to mesh with other reports that you've read from SI and ESPN. I guess you can call that adequate justification but I didn't read the articles you did so that may be why I don't believe the poster you quoted. Or maybe I just don't want to get my hopes up about Brady and Belichick leaving.

Just because the theory seems plausible doesn't necessarily make it true though. I also never called it a ridiculous theory, I said I didn't buy it because I don't see Belichick and Brady leaving New England after the season. The alien theory was just something that popped into my head because your justification for believing in the story was basically "well, we don't know it isn't true either" which is why I went to the other extreme with the alien thing. I don't think the punishment was harsh in any way and I don't think it overcompensated for Spygate at all. Belichick was not punished whatsoever for the deflate scandal thing and was barely punished for spygate when you consider that he was only fined and not even suspended. They very well may have been trying to make Brady the fall guy in an attempt to sweep this story under the rug as quickly as possible but he was likely directly involved. I don't see any way that the team would sanction deflating footballs without the guy who handles the football on every single snap being in on it. Even if Brady didn't orchestrate it, he had to have been complicit in some manner. As for the other owners, I don't doubt that they are sick of the Patriots constant cheating with little to no repercussions but if they aren't willing to do anything more than complain behind closed doors then they deserve what they get. Seems stupid to only complain about it off the record just to protect the shield. Better to take the hit on reputation, fix the problems by eliminating the ones repeatedly breaking the rules, and enjoy the increase popularity that ensure from increased parity within the league once everyone is abiding by the same rules.

Well, we don't know if Bill Belichick is really an alien from the planet XK-179 either but to believe something just because you can't prove it's false is illogical. Just like with religion, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim and not the people being told the fish stories to prove them wrong. The owners may very well be getting sick of the Patriots antics as well, but until one of those cowards steps forward and calls b.s. in public they deserve what they get.

Nice theory but I don't buy it for a minute. I'd love to be proven wrong because that would mean Belichick and Brady are both gone from the land of Massholes but I don't see it happening and if that part isn't true then I highly doubt the rest of it is.

I tried to avoid this argument because of my existing pro-science/anti-evangelical bias that's peppered all throughout the Theology thread but I agree completely. I wouldn't even want to go to a dentist that dismisses evolution, let alone a brain surgeon. How people support him boggles my mind.

Exactly. Then add in that he wants to install a tax policy equivalent to tithing so everyone pays a 10% flat tax yet he wants to increase military spending so somehow we are going to drastically cut the government's revenue through taxation while increasing military spending and he somehow believes this will balance the budget. It's ok though because we can just cut every social program out there (I'm sure Jesus would love that) even though programs like welfare, food stamps, education, NASA, and the EPA in total amount to a drop in the bucket in comparison.

Could be either of those or she could have gotten an awful statement of truth from her attorney or the DA (who knows if she has personal counsel) that this won't be pretty and Kane's lawyer will do everything in his power to smear her character in order to create reasonable doubt.

Where are they going to put them, though? On offense we already have Moulson, Gionta, Legwand, and McCormick as long time (over 30) veterans and Kane, Ennis, O'Reilly, McGinn, Girgensons, and Foligno as younger veterans with multiple years of pro experience along with younger guys like Eichel, Reinhart, Larsson, and Deslauriers who need spots in the lineup. On defense we have Colaiacovo and Gorges as long time (over 30) veterans with younger veterans in Bogosian and Weber, and two younger guys in Ristolainen and Psysk who need spots in the lineup. We're also set in goal for the season with Lehner and Johnson. I think this team has a great mix of veterans, young veterans, and green players. I'm perfectly fine with upgrading, especially over guys like Colaiacovo, Legwand, or Johnson but I wouldn't necessarily look to bring in older veterans just because they are veterans.

Ok, man. Fair enough. That k8 post seemed to have an air of whimsical psychosis in the vein of Hunter S Thompson on an ether or mesculine binge (no offense) so I drew some comparisons that I guess weren't actual parallels. My apologies. Hope you are doing well man. This place is more interesting when you are here for sure.

Ok, I read your comment twice to make sure I wasn't having a stroke the first time I read it and I still couldn't comprehend your post at all. Is this Yuri?

SMJ, I appreciate your statement and am glad that we are able to have a well mannered discussion on the topic. I'll try to answer the questions and respond without hostility while still getting my points across. First off, people having faith in a supreme being doesn't bother me in and of itself. I'm truly happy for you and anyone else who can find solace in religion and can use it as a coping mechanism to alleviate the high stress that befalls the human race from knowing that one day we are all going to die. I don't turn my hose on Christmas carolers or Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who travel door to door, I don't get offended by nativity scenes outside of churches, or scoff when people say God Bless You to someone who sneezes, or when they say Happy Easter or Merry Christmas. Personally I think the fear of death does dupe people into finding religion but I wouldn't care if they kept it to themselves. You seem to be humble which definitely follows along with the teachings of Jesus but not all Christians seem to have that mindset unfortunately and sometimes people use it to behave in a self righteous manner that destroys the environment or discriminates against the rights of others. When those who believe try to force their beliefs on non-believers or even on fellow believers who choose to believe in a different way, then it very much bothers me and I feel like it's my duty to say something and help cast a light on it in order to get public opinion to shift and get things back to the way they should be (separation of church and state). This includes speaking out against the people who protest or bomb abortion clinics and politicians who try to take these services away from women who may need them. I also feel the need to speak out against people who discriminate against homosexuals, and particularly the people who try to pass off their theology as science and attempt to pervert the education system by trying to equate a religious theory like intelligent design and give it equal standing with a scientific theory like evolution. Again, I would be completely fine with ID being taught in a Theology class or some sort of social studies class but not in a science class because ID does not use the scientific method whatsoever. I'm familiar with the apostle Thomas and I was named after him in a round about way (I was named after my Grandmother's Brother who was named after the Apostle). I do affiliate with his skepticism and because I prefer the scientific method of observation, facts, and measuring results it would probably take an appearance from God to change my beliefs. As for morality and standards, I would say that the standards are set by the community that you are speaking about. They tend to differ from region to region and place to place. That's why some tribes practiced cannibalism and others didn't, some shrunk the heads of their enemies and others didn't. Some places treat women with respect and admiration, and others treat them like subservient second class citizens. Some cultures show reverence to tribal elders and some used to send them off on an iceberg. Some groups care for disabled children while others let the ones who weren't healthy die off so they could focus on the healthy ones. I'm not an Anthropologist but all of these examples should pretty much prove that individual groups set their own standards and I'm sure it could be argued that some of these groups made their decisions for religious reasons and some did not. Morality is not dependent on belief in the Supernatural. Societies all have standards for morality whether they have belief in a supernatural or not. I think most concepts of right and wrong stem from the Golden Rule of treating others the way you would want yourself and those you care about to be treated. I think it's a pretty innate concept that existed thousands of years before Moses, Noah, Adam and Eve, or the Judeo-Christian version of God. The old world of tens of thousands of years ago was a rough place and people realized that there was safety in numbers and it that living in a society would be beneficial to us. Living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection from predators, and strength of the group is far greater than the strength of any one individual. This is completely independent of the existence or need for an sort of higher being and many animals including baboons, fish, wolves, lions, gazelle, and elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural. Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules or else risk punishment or banishment from the group. The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they themselves don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on. I have stated this whole concept multiple times now and yet you still seem to ask this same question over and over again. If my answer is insufficient for you, I apologize, but it's the best I can do. The standards are set by the group overall or the leader of the group, which explains why there are different standards in different areas. There have pretty much always been standards for every group and there have and will always be people who will break the rules and need to be punished or banished from the group. Personally I think the problems in the world today stem from poverty and greed. Those who have just want more leading to those with little or nothing left to starve or do desperate things. Not to turn this all political but if the Republicans who claim to be such awesome Christians would do what Jesus asked them to do and actually help the poor then maybe poverty and desperation wouldn't be so rampant. As for your statement about people throughout history and all over the world having a need to invent belief systems and Gods causing you to believe that means the Bible is accurate, I find the exact opposite. I think it's an innate coping mechanism that stems from finding a way to deal with the stress that we are all going to die one day. It seems unique to our species that we know each of us is going to die so believing in an afterlife where we can reconnect with lost loved ones and a benevolent creator who makes it all possible is an easy way to allow us to cope with losing loved ones as well as our own eventual demise. I'm not sure how knowing that 40,000 year ago that Neanderthals buried their dead with their tools and possessions makes the statements in a 5,000 year old book true but I'm not trying to convert you so I'll leave it at that.

I hear Canadian beer is used to combat Marfans but requires large quantities. That explains Mr. Intangibles DUI. Somebody get the ghost of Johnny Cochran on the phone. O'Reilly had to drink and drive because drinking was the only way for him to avoid infection with Marfans.

Fair enough. I can posit that Jesus had a unique message without it being proof of his divinity or even his existence. I can also agree that he had a really good message. The part I don't understand is how arguably his biggest supporters (a certain political ideology seems to stake claim to him more than the others) seem to outright ignore his message, yet still claim to be his biggest fans, but that conversation is probably better off in the politics thread. Unfortunately that thread is over run with gun control debates, which is a waste of energy because gun laws don't seem to change no matter which party is in charge.

Whiskey, Have you studied these other Gods in depth? I've read some basic stuff from various different sources but wouldn't consider myself an expert on any of them, particularly the part about what these guys preached about. Without doing the research it's kind of hard to claim he is significantly different from these other Gods and it seems like the vast majority of people who try to claim how different Jesus was have really only studied him and have little more than a cursory knowledge of the others that they claim are so different from Jesus. I agree with the sentiment that Jesus presented some great philosophies and had some radically good ideas about how society should function (especially when it comes to helping those that are less fortunate) but that's about as far as I can get before all the other claims start to give me pause.

SMJ, In response to your first comment above I find it extremely arrogant that you are implying morality and moral judgments require belief in some sort of higher power. What makes you think believing in an invisible man living in the sky gives you or the deity you believe in any sort of moral authority? The entire concept of the golden rule (treat others the way you would want to be treated) has existed for thousands of years prior to even the earliest religions. I'm not going to rehash the concept of community or tribal order and success through basic cooperation and good works because I did all this in Post #177 of page 5 of this very thread and it can be referenced there. You seem to have either ignored or completely missed it back when I posted it then but it's still there in response to the last time you tried to claim that morality has to come from a higher being. Regardless, the concept of doing the right thing is known by basically everyone regardless of any sort of theological beliefs. To your second comment, it's a perfectly logical reason to discard Tim Chaffey. What better reason to discard the opinions of Tim Chaffey than the fact that he doesn't use logic that is rooted in valid facts in his arguments whatsoever? His entire basis for his argument against an old earth is circular logic stemming from his belief that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so. He uses no empirical data or evidence to support his claims whatsoever and then has the gall to act like he made a solid case. Somebody who does that is not going to expand my learning in any meaningful way, he is merely trying to push his unfounded beliefs on others without having any sort of basis in fact. If you want me to read that drivel take me up on my offer and read something by Richard Dawkins or a real scientist that uses systematic observation, measurement, experimentation, forming a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis, along with the most important part of changing their theories and beliefs based on the results of the facts and data. The reason I trust scientists is because their positions can change when more information, facts, and evidence become available. Religious belief structures don't change because they never use facts or data in their arguments. As for the Commandment needing to be changed it was Whiskey who made the statement that Jesus could simply modify the first commandment like he did by fulfilling mosaic law. This was in response to my comment about how if Jesus is a man (not a God like Horus, Mithra, Krishna, et al) then worshipping him would seem to be breaking the 1st Commandment. It's my opinion that the whole trinity thing was just a loophole made to get around that without changing the Bible since something infallible should never have to be changed. It seems like Jesus shifts from man to God and back to man whenever it's convenient for the debate at the time. Again this just doesn't pass the smell test for me, but to each his own. As for the similarities between all these Gods, different books and different sources offer different pieces of information (just like the Bible before it was consolidated) and I don't have the desire, the time, or the money to learn hieroglyphics and travel to Egypt and do the research myself. Personally it doesn't really matter to me because I think Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Jesus, and the whole lot is all the same nonsense story. I remember reading from several different sources about Osiris (Horus's Dad) losing his genitals and them getting eaten by a catfish in the Nile or some nonsense and some sort of golden got fashioned and given to Isis which impregnated her and so she was able to conceive while being a virgin. Saying all of that I realize it sounds ridiculous on the surface but is it any more ridiculous than talking snakes, living in a great fish, or one family collecting all of the species of the earth and getting them to coexist on a boat for 40 days or however long it was? The point is that its one old ridiculous story that preceded a lot of other ridiculous (and often copycat) stories that came after it. I'm not a Theologian and have no desire to spend my days researching all of these fairy tales. I imagine that many of them have great lessons that can be learned, as long as you don't try to take them literally. I think Christianity owes part of its success to copying and adopting things that were indigenous to the native people they spread their message to. The Christmas tree is a great example, as is having their major holidays (xmas and easter) celebrated at the time of the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox. The story of Horus didn't stop the people of India from coming up with their own version in Krishna and it didn't stop the Persians from coming up with their own version in Mithra, or the Greeks from coming up with Dionysus, so why would it stop the Christians having their version with Jesus? The basic story is not unique whatsoever.

For not being human Horus sure seemed to have a lot of human things happen to him as did all those other Gods. Who knew Gods needed to be born, baptized, killed and resurrected. To dismiss the similarities of their stories just because one was a God and the other is God in a human form seems a little convenient as well. Also, if the Bible is the word of God and God is infallible how could one of his commandments need to be modified? Wouldn't writing a commandment (the first one no less) that could even possibly need to be modified put his perfection into question? It just doesn't pass the smell test for me and hasn't since I was about 12 or 13.

You're splitting hairs here. Jesus's claim is being the son of God but also divine. I guess you could argue a half God but that is fairly common place in many of the old religions as well (Zeus had tons of half human children off the top of my head). As a former Roman Catholic and current atheist I shoudn't need to be the one explaining the holy trinity thing but he was supposedly both man and God along with the holy spirit all beig part of it at the same time which was the whole loophole to get around breaking the 1st Commandment. Horus was a God because he was the son of Osiris and Isis, who were aso Gods. I fail to see how that disqualifies him as a comparable to Jesus, especially when they share all of the other greatest hits of being born of a virgin on Dec 25th, being dead for 3 days, rising from the dead, the star in the East, and all that stuff.

I'll add that the story of Jesus is not unique whatsoever. As I stated upthread the stories of Horus, Mithra, Krisha, et al share the exact same claims and they all predate the birth of Jesus. Since Tim Chaffey seems to think the earth is only 6000 years old and we lived alongside with dinosaurs at the exact same time he should not be taken seriously whatsoever. I'll take my science lessons from actual scientists who use facts to shape their opinions anyday over Theologians who try to twist the facts to support their belef systems.

Your first sentence is somewhat confusing because of the use of two separate negatives. Do you mean How can I consider that his message was simply about some platitudes? If so, that's how I see it (I think they are just platitudes and that the Bible is predominantly allegorical). If you mean how I can not consider that his message was about more than platitudes I will say that I have considered it, but have gone with the former instead of the latter. I can equate Jesus and Gandhi because I believe they were both just men, although there's empirical evidence that Gandhi definitely existed. Having non-Christians mention Jesus in old books doesn't equate to empirical evidence. Non-Vikings have written about Odin and Thor in some very old books as well, but that's not empirical evidence either. Cavemen from tens of thousands of years ago used to bury their dead with their tools and other possessions but that doesn't prove there's an afterlife even though these artifacts predate any religion by tens of thousands of years that exists today. I don't subscribe to the divinity of Jesus Christ or of any religious figure because I believe that man made God and not the other way around. That being said just because I don't worship Jesus doesn't mean he didn't have some great ideas about turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor whether he said these things himself or they were attributed to him in books written later on (Good ideas can be good ideas regardless of their origin). I'm not a Hindu or Buddhist either but I can still agree with many of their platitudes as well. I believe in doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do and not because of the promise of a wonderful afterlife if I believe or do certain things or because of the threat of a tortuous afterlife if I don't believe or do certain things. As for reading the book from Tim Chaffey, I will pass. I've read some of his bio and background and have come to the impression that he's the exact problem I have with religion. He's another one of the young earth creationists and it's people like him that are trying to pervert science and push their agenda. I've been trying to be as respectful as possible but that Guy! Here's are a couple of quotes from his book Old Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict is in: ”Since the Bible undisputedly teaches a young earth, when someone claims that scientific evidence proves otherwise, we can be certain they are mistaken.” (pp.153) "Additionally, God cursed the earth when Adam sinned (Gen 3:17-18). The Bible provides only a few details of how the world was changed, such as thorns and thistles. Can we be certain that radioactive decay rates were not affected?” That's how the guy argues for a young earth and how he disputes radiometric dating. I'd rather not submit my brain to such nonsense but I'll make you a deal. You read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins first and then I'll think about subjecting my brain to the circular logic of the Bible being the Word of God because the Bible says so. Here is a short article that shows there is a living tree that was discovered in Sweden back in 2008 that's root system is 9,550 year old. I guess it started growing out in space because the earth is only 6,000 years old according to guys like Tim Chaffey. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html

This is the response to Jefferson that I would expect from most Christians. Since I don't consider myself a Christian though I can easily disagree and I really appreciate Jefferson's method. Jesus can be a great example to follow (similar to Ghandi) even without being divine. His messages of turning the other cheek, helping the poor, and loving your neighbor are something to aspire to whether he was the son of God, just a regular man who was charismatic enough to amass a huge following of people, or if he never actually existed and his story was just made up and copied from all of the other solar messiahs that preceded him by hundreds and sometimes thousands of years (Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, etc. whose stories are all eerily similar being born of a virgin on Dec. 25th, the Star in the East, 12 disciples, being dead for 3 days then rising from the dead and all that stuff).

I was raised Roman Catholic too and did the whole Baptism, Sunday school, 1st Confession and Communion, Confirmation, and all that before I reached the age of reason as George Carlin puts it. Technically I reached that age before Confirmation but I went through the motions anyway to keep my Mom happy. As previously stated I am an atheist and take the Jeffersonian view that Jesus was an amazing role model (particularly his liberal views on helping the poor) whether he really existed or was just an idea written about in allegorical form but I don't believe in his (or anyone's divinity). I commend your ability to separate/ compartmentalize (not sure what to the best term to use is) Jefferson's political views from his religious ones though. As I stated previously his revision of the Bible would logically (at least to me) seem to be a direct contradiction of the Christian faith at best and outright blasphemy at worst.