Is “Tebowing” an attack on Christianity?

posted at 7:00 pm on December 4, 2011 by Howard Portnoy

The question that forms the title of this post has been getting a good bit of play in conservative circles of late. It was hinted at in a segment of FOX and Friends on Friday that featured NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Fran Tarkenton. And it is the main focus of a column by National Review Online news editor Daniel Foster that appeared on Saturday.

“Tebowing,” should the term be unfamiliar, takes its name from another quarterback, current Denver Broncos play caller Tim Tebow. More specifically, the term designates the now-viral mockery of his habit of kneeling down and bowing his head after a touchdown to commune with his God.

As Foster writes with more than a hint of indignation, Tebowing his become an Internet phenomenon, with its own website, a Twitter account, and most recently a YouTube video titled “Tebowing for Dummies.” At such sites, Foster continues:

[Y]ou can see an act of communion with one’s creator rendered as a bit of pop-cultural ephemera, [complete with] pictures of folks striking the pose everywhere from Oxford to Istanbul, with that muddle of irony and enthusiasm that has become my generation’s trademark.

Foster’s obvious pique at these send-ups derives in part from the fact of Tebow’s wholesomeness (he is in Foster’s words “squeaky clean, in a sport that notoriously is not”). Wherein, Foster insists, lies the origins of Tebowing. It is, in short, “the power of Tebow’s evangelical-Christian faith, and the earnestness with which he professes it [that] seems to annoy so many people.”

I’m going to have toss out my red challenge flag here. Foster may be right that for some people, the problem isn’t Tebow’s religiosity but the fact that professional sports are “so filled with clichéd Jesus praise that” fans doubt his sincerity. But I submit that for many who prefer to spend their Sundays watching the exquisite choreography of a perfectly executed screen pass, the problem is Tebow’s self-absorption.

Tebow is free to give “mad respect” to his lord, but I’d rather he do it on his own time. A number of players cross themselves on every play, but they do it discreetly — and expeditiously. Tebow’s prayer timeouts, by contrast, are as gratuitously in-your-face as the most flagrant end zone dance. And they last as long. Yet, according to his supporters, all of footballdom is supposed to give him a pass because his purpose is holy. Isn’t that what churches are for?

Another, subtler, ingredient in the widespread antipathy toward Tebow is that he is an anomaly. His success as an NFL quarterback (he is 4 and 1 since replacing Kyle Orton at the helm of the Broncos offense) doesn’t make sense to diehard football fans. His passing numbers — he has a 45% completion rate — are awful. His team is winning through a combination of razzle-dazzle and offensive schemes that haven’t been used by college, let alone NFL, coaches in two decades.

I am predicting that “this too shall pass” (to cite a proverb that Tebow should appreciate because of its religious roots). Sooner or later all 31 remaining teams in the league will develop defensive strategies to counter Denver’s pre-Knute Rockne offense, and Tebow — and Tebowing — will be gone.

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 15 16 17 18 19

and also the life of another human being.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I suspected that he could not come up with a workable phrasing of morality that did not include the “fellow human being” concept. This is what he was dodging back when I asked him about morality.

Thus the most rational form of morality he can conceive has no basis to condemn a greater being. So he has no basis, by which he understands to say that God is not wrong. He just has to pout and flail his arms.

Axeman on December 6, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Citations?

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM

No, you’re right, no one ever considered flying machines to be solely in the realm of fantasy.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

You certainly haven’t provided an explanation as to why genocide is immoral.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I never said genocide was immoral. You’re confused right now, blink. Take MadCon’s advice and take a deep breath before flying off the handle.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 1:47 PM

That’s merely a risk to you. That doesn’t make it wrong or immoral./

It does, actually. Along with the fact that it harms the other person.

You’re bad at this, and what’s funny is that you think you’re good at it.

Again, it didn’t necessarily violate your self-interest. In fact, the murder may put you at less risk of being harmed.

In what case would that even occur, other than being at war, in which humanity has accepted there are altered arrangements for these kinds of instances?

The mere fact that we treat murder differently than killing in self defense is an indication that murder is more morally wrong than killing in self defense. There’s a difference between murder and manslaughter. Intent matters.

To most of us. To you, not so sure.

Are your creations perfect?

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:32 PM

F*ck no.

But I’m not the perfect omnipotent invisible being you believe in who is alleged to have created everything we see and experience (all the good stuff, that is, and none of the bad).

And if God isn’t perfect, and his creation isn’t perfect, then it’s not much of a God.

I am very curious intellectually, not not about superstitious nonsense. I also haven’t read up on alchemy, astrology, and tarot card theory, yet I dismiss those as nonsense as well.

Though I did study Greek mythology in high school, I guess I should feel pretty confident tossing that theology aside.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I recommend you waste a lot of time and effort reading up on those interesting alternative theories, Pablo.

Just so you can come to the same conclusion you are at now.

Reinvent the wheel!

Really? Is a rabbit legally protected from being killed by another rabbit?

Rabbits don’t make laws, blink. They’re not humans. Humans make laws.

Hold my hand. We’ll get through this together.

Says who? Why shouldn’t you be free to do whatever you want? Why should you be forced to believe that society’s laws are just?

Because, you sociopath, there are other people who can be directly and negatively affected by your actions by your actions and to whom you can cause harm.

We’re not forced to believe society’s laws are just – we are taught why they’re just, and we come to learn this. And if the laws are unjust, we can change them.

Unlike God’s laws, which are imposed without input from any of those expected to follow them while he violates them with impunity.

Yes, society has developed a system. That doesn’t mean that this system has the ability to force it’s code of morals on you.

It does, actually, but the difference is that it is A) alterable with the cooperation of others, and B) not imposed by a celestial dictator. So it’s infinitely preferable to the ancient “morality” of genocidal desert-dwelling nomads who couldn’t read.

Why should humans have to endure the burden of a moral code which is more strict than other mammals?

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Because human beings are higher-order thinkers and social beings on a scale and by a degree that is much more advanced than other mammals. We recognize pain in ourselves and others, and we feel empathy.

Well, most of us do.

This is hard for you, isn’t it?

So what? You have no obligation to comply with the current system simply because it supports quality of life for many humans. You should have the right comply with a set of morals that works for you.

Coincidentally, the society’s morals – expressed in its codified laws – and mine coincide in most places.

So living by a set of morals that works for me and for everyone else isn’t a problem.

Is it a problem for you?

Damn! That’s not the answer you wanted.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM

This doesn’t even make any sense. I’ve reduced you to incoherent babble.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

It makes perfect sense in the Good Lt worldview. You’ve completely eliminated any risk of being harmed, you’ve rid the world of anger and sadness, and since you’ve killed all the lawgivers, you are no longer susceptible to legal punishment.

The only thing left is the guilt, but again, that guilt is irrational. Once you realize that you’ve actually done the world a favor, that guilt should wash away.

The only complication is this absurd, archaic notion that people actually ‘deserve’ their lives anymore than a rabbit or a centipede does.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Yup, he was forced to commit to this argumentum ad populum so we put the nails in the coffin of this debate. But since he doesn’t realize that he’s been repeatedly made to look like a monkey, he’ll keep writing nonsense. He’ll keep writing that God is mean because kids get cancer, etc. despite the fact that this has been successfully countered dozens of times in this thread.

It’s sad, maybe next time, I’ll argue in favor of atheism because I know I could do a much better job than he.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Just tell us “GOD DID IT.”

Oh, I’m sorry – did I respond to your lengthy and idiotic excursion into the weeds of “why murdering people is wrong?”

Yes, I did.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Sorry, I’m just on autopilot right now since this debate no longer needs any thinking.

Let us know when you start.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM

You’ve completely eliminated any risk of being harmed, you’ve rid the world of anger and sadness, and since you’ve killed all the lawgivers, you are no longer susceptible to legal punishment.

Arguing against what you wished or imagined in your own head that I said instead of what I did say is easy!

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Ha! Sorry, I’m just on autopilot right now since this debate no longer needs any thinking. Auto-responses to their continued cries are all that is needed.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM

It’s alright, our names both start with ‘Good’ so I can understand the mix-up.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM

The only thing left is the guilt, but again, that guilt is irrational. Once you realize that you’ve actually done the world a favor, that guilt should wash away.

Only to a sociopath.

The rest of us have empathy. And for you and people like blink, sympathy.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Ha! Sorry, I’m just on autopilot right now since this debate no longer needs any thinking. Auto-responses to their continued cries are all that is needed.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Reading is fundamental.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM

You certainly haven’t provided an explanation as to why genocide is immoral.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Actualy, you have been asked to provide this, as you think that challenging others to describe their morality to you is a sufficient substitute for you describing yours.

And now that you’ve been responded to – at length – it’s your turn.

Why is murder immoral?
Why is genocide immoral?

Educate everyone. We’re all waiting for you to descend from Olympus and share with us the nectar of the Gods, to whom you have a direct line.

Any time, coward.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Arguing against what you wished or imagined in your own head that I said instead of what I did say is easy!

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Really? Here’s your exact words:

I would feel guilt, and would also be punished under the laws or our society. I would also anger those who knew that person, enhancing the probability that they may harm me as well.

So yes, it does violate my self interest. Several times over.

If you kill everyone who enforces societal laws, there is no fear of punishment. If you kill everyone who would feel anger over the victim’s death, there is no fear of retribution. So the only thing that violates your self-interest is guilt.

So your argument against complete global genocide is, basically, “I’d feel bad about it.” The eradication of every living thing on the planet is on the same moral rung as taking another helping of Thanksgiving dinner after you’re already full.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Why are you discussing morality? Where did morality come from? Natural selection? Who is the objective arbiter of what is moral?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM

How can one be smart and disbelieve in bronze age Jewish folklore?

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I think it’s more based on your demonstrated inability to conduct a competent argument on anything.

Did you know that early 20th-century scientists believed that flaming rock religious artifacts in Zeus cults–thrown down by Zeus–were simple bronze-age Greek superstition–until they spotted meteorites. Did you know that before Schliemann found Troy it was considered folklore, and that each city, before he found it was dismissed as “folklore”. bronze-age, pre-Hellenic folklore, if that helps you.

Now, I know you’re going to say something dumb or glib or both, so I’ll just provide it: “Meteors actually exist and there is no indication that they were thrown by Zeus” Which skewers my brilliant point that Scientists found that they were thrown by Zeus–or didn’t exist. (In case, you’re wondering, neither was my point.)

The point is that calling it “folklore” and putting an age and an ethnicity to it is not an argument. You’re just reasserting your own classification. Which in case, you didn’t know, is not an effective argument.

Nobody is making the argument that believing in folklore is a sign of intelligence. So it’s also a straw man.

Axeman on December 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM

So the only thing that violates your self-interest is guilt.

Better that than “I will be punished by a invisible celestial dictator if I misbehave (who will forgive me anyway)”.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Only to a sociopath.

The rest of us have empathy. And for you and people like blink, sympathy.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:55 PM

What’s sociopathic about killing animals? You and the boll weevil are both cosmic accidents, Good Lt.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Where did morality come from?

Natural selection?

Yes.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

What’s sociopathic about killing animals? You and the boll weevil are both cosmic accidents, Good Lt.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

We’re talking about killing humans.

Going by “God’s morality,” I can see how you might think that murdering humans is okey-dokey (ask the victims of Noah’s flood!).

But it isn’t.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Better that than “I will be punished by a invisible celestial dictator if I misbehave (who will forgive me anyway)”.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM

So you have a moral system based around guilt?

Congratulations! You’re now Catholic. Enjoy the eucharist.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Christians have killed a lot of people. So have atheists. I bet you a lot more atheists are killers than Jains, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM

There is no creator god in Jainism. Jains are essentially atheists, or at least agnostics. So I guess I miss your point?

Perceptron on December 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Yes.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:09 PM

How did that happen, exactly?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:14 PM

If you kill everyone who enforces societal laws, there is no fear of punishment.

Why would I do that?

This is where your “morality” goes off the rails -right out of the gate.

The assumption that I’m a murderer and a psychotic killer without GOD’S LAW holding me back is erroneous.

And so is your entire assessment of “morality” built on that assumption.

Who is the objective arbiter of what is moral?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Vishnu. Buddha. Allah. Thor. Yaweh.

Which one? Why?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

How did that happen, exactly?

There are many many books written on natural selection if you are interested.

Check your local library.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

We’re talking about killing humans.

Going by “God’s morality,” I can see how you might think that murdering humans is okey-dokey (ask the victims of Noah’s flood!).

But it isn’t.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Humans are animals, Good Lt. Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia.

By the way, murder is a legal term, and you have been continually misusing it.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

You only provided a lame, barely coherent response.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Lame = I can’t respond with anything coherent and won’t try, so I’ll just keep asking questions of others while pretending my questions are my answers.

So now you can tell us why genocide is immoral, which you’ve been asked to do many times.

Anytime, champ. We’re waiting to see your brilliance in action. You’ve hyped your superior intellect to this point.

Now it’s time to deliver the goods.

Tell mankind why genocide and murder are immoral.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Which one? Why?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Is morality internal to a person or external? Is it learned, or is it inate?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Humans are animals, Good Lt. Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia.

And?

By the way, murder is a legal term, and you have been continually misusing it.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

There’s a reason we humans make distinctions between murder and other forms of killing.

Can you guess why?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Is morality internal to a person or external? Is it learned, or is it inate?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

First pick the divine invisible unprovable creator you’re selecting to the the “objective arbiter of what is moral.”

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

There are many many books written on natural selection if you are interested.

Check your local library.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Just make sure to burn all the books by prehistoric monkey men like Galen, Marcus Aurelius and Ovid. They were peanut-brains who didn’t even know that protons are comprised of two up quarks and a down quark!

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:21 PM

There are many many books written on natural selection if you are interested.

Check your local library.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:18 PM

No, I’m asking you. Specifically about morality. How did morality evolve into mankind uniquely through natural selection?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:21 PM

There is no creator god in Jainism. Jains are essentially atheists, or at least agnostics. So I guess I miss your point?

But without a creator God they will all be killing each other!11!!

How can they behave without the threat of eternal punishment!

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM

There’s a reason we humans make distinctions between murder and other forms of killing.

Can you guess why?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Why? Why did Hitler, Stalin and Mao perfect mass slaughter?

NotCoach on December 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM

You still haven’t provided an answer

I’ve provided you with plenty of answers – that you don’t like them or dismiss them as “stupid” is irrelevant to the fact that your questions have received answers.

You’ve been asked a dozen or so times why genocide is immoral and haven’t provided an answer once.

It’s your turn to answer.

Go ahead. You can do it. Enlighten us all.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:23 PM

First pick the divine invisible unprovable creator you’re selecting to the the “objective arbiter of what is moral.”

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

No, first answer my question. Is it learned, or inate? Is it the product of society? Or of natural selection, like Pablo says?

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Why? Why did Hitler, Stalin and Mao perfect mass slaughter?

NotCoach on December 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM

You mean of the kind that God committed during Noah’s flood, just on smaller scales?

You didn’t answer the question, leading me to think you are coming down with blinkitis.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM

There’s a reason we humans make distinctions between murder and other forms of killing.

Can you guess why?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM

To keep an orderly, law-abiding society functioning. That says nothing about morality, though.

Why are you making a distinction between humans and other animals? Again, that might be a legal distinction worth making, but certainly not a logical moral distinction. Are the amino acids in my body somehow more special, more worthy of life than those in a marmoset?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM

blink… you should change your screenname to dense…

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM

No, I’m asking you. Specifically about morality. How did morality evolve into mankind uniquely through natural selection?

It isn’t unique to man. We just have a much more advanced and nuanced morality, ethics and emotions than other animals.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

And you say it isn’t based on your arbitrary feelings of guilt and arbitrary compliance with societal laws.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Just tell us why you think genocide is immoral, blink, assuming you do.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Good Lt and Pablo…

Give it up… when someone is as dense as most of these defenders of the faith are, you just gotta let it go.

No matter how much you prove them false, it won’t matter.

They have their faith and that’s that. I get your desire to reach them but there is no reaching deluded individuals.

blink and Co can’t be helped until they learn to help themselves.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:29 PM

blink… you suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect.

You’re ignorant of how ignorant you are.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM

You mean of the kind that God committed during Noah’s flood, just on smaller scales?

You didn’t answer the question, leading me to think you are coming down with blinkitis.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM

What does God and Noah have to do with your question?

But I was asking you to enlighten us since you apparently have an answer for why mass murder on such a grand scale is often socially acceptable.

NotCoach on December 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM

You mean of the kind that God committed during Noah’s flood, just on smaller scales?

You didn’t answer the question, leading me to think you are coming down with blinkitis.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM

You seem to think God should be subject to your own sense of right and wrong. God can do things that you cannot. Of course you’ll have a problem with that. God can and has wiped out entire people because he knows the evil in their hearts. You don’t know what’s in their hearts, so for you to do so is to put yourself on God’s throne. God cannot commit “murder” or “genocide” as you so cutely put it. God gives life and he takes it away. Romans 9:20, “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM

There is no creator god in Jainism. Jains are essentially atheists, or at least agnostics. So I guess I miss your point?

Perceptron on December 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Really? I don’t know many atheists or agnostics who believe in karma-samsara, or the divinity of the human soul, or in divine beings like Tirthankaras. Where did you learn that a religion needs a creator God to be considered a ‘real’ religion?

BTW, the reason Jains don’t have a creator God is because they believe that the universe was never created, it simply exists, always will exist, and infinitely cycles.

Try to tell a Jain to his face that he’s actually agnostic. He won’t hit you, because they’re very peaceful and non-violent, but he will certainly give you a sour look.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Strawman. Nobody assumed that.

Yes, you did.

This is obviously the best answer you can give because you’ve given it a dozen times.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I don’t believe he chose one.

And I wasn’t even talking to you, but whatever.

Tell us why genocide is wrong and stop avoiding sharing your divine wisdom with us.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM

This is obviously the best answer you can give because you’ve given it a dozen times.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM

And, of course, ‘one of those things is not like the other.’

Which Buddha would you like us to ask, Good Lt? Siddhartha Gautama?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You haven’t provided a single argument to help them in their debate.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Having SauerKraut on your side in an automatic own-goal.

Don’t go to Colombia, Sauer. You’ll end up like Andres Escobar.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Comedy Gold coming from you!

Saurkraut, your intelligence is a distant 3rd behind Good Lt and Pablo Honey, and that’s pathetic.

You haven’t provided a single argument to help them in their debate.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:36 PM

You know what’s comedy gold blink?

You and your blustering self… You think that if you can just keep SAYing you won, that you did…

As I said, you’ve SO lost the debate, you just lack the metacognitive ability to realize your loss.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM

So, animals have moral obligations, too, right? Rabbits have moral obligations, right?

Never said anything about “moral obligations.” Can you go one post without putting words in peoples mouths?

You still haven’t said why genocide and murder are wrong btw.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM

None of you are as intelligent as any of you think.

Beo on December 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM

LOL@Good Solid B Plus…

Coming from you with a name like that… LOL!

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM

LOL@blink…

no

you didn’t.

LMFAO!

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:46 PM

blink — a great mind in his own mind… LMFAO

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Coming from you with a name like that… LOL!

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Sauer has some very interesting theories about the establishment clause. You guys should ask him about them.

ProTip: Interesting means incredibly stupid.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Sure I did, and YOU helped. Thanks!!!

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM

bluster… I take back what I said earlier bro… You shouldn’t change it to “dense”, you should change it to “bluster”

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Really? I don’t know many atheists or agnostics who believe in karma-samsara, or the divinity of the human soul, or in divine beings like Tirthankaras. Where did you learn that a religion needs a creator God to be considered a ‘real’ religion?

BTW, the reason Jains don’t have a creator God is because they believe that the universe was never created, it simply exists, always will exist, and infinitely cycles.

Try to tell a Jain to his face that he’s actually agnostic. He won’t hit you, because they’re very peaceful and non-violent, but he will certainly give you a sour look.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Did I say Jainism is not a ‘real’ religion? I simply pointed out that Jains don’t have a creator god and are at least agnostic on that point.

If we take a simple definition of ‘agnostic’ to be one who lacks a belief in a god that is the ultimate creator and ruler of the universe, Jains certainly qualify.

Perceptron on December 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM

You weren’t saying that it morality wasn’t “unique to man” even though the question states, “Specifically about morality”? Hilarious, the question even used the word “Specifically.”!

Where did I state “moral obligations”?

I said “morality”.

And yes, other animals have morality..of a kind…not just humans.

Of course you define morality as “obeying God”, in that case they don’t.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Why is murder immoral?
Why is genocide immoral?

Educate everyone. We’re all waiting for you to descend from Olympus and share with us the nectar of the Gods, to whom you have a direct line.

Any time, coward.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Ironic words for one who prefers to act as an ambusher and sniper.

Atheists say “Let us drive.” Everything will be so much better if we’re only like you guys. You don’t really understand that dissecting classical morality for a more modern approach and the “it’s in development” attitude for a “purely rational” morality–or the morality’s a no-brainer type of approach delivers nothing.

One of the projects of the Logical Positivist school, who thought that God was a meaningless word–but so were so many “emotional” words like “ought” and “good” and “bad”–was to come up with a completely rational language to avoid the traps of the natural language. It was always in development–until their school was soundly defeated an shown that they had an unreasonable theory of language.

Plus that, for atheist advocates there is only one answer to become rational you must stop believing in what you cannot substantiate. That this is a modern way of doing things–yet they don’t see how that reflects on a morality that they cannot formulate.

Did you know that the goal that Nietzsche undertook was to reform morality to a “earth-centered” and rational basis? And what did he come up with? “We imagine that hardness, violence, slavery, peril in the street and in the heart, concealment, Stoicism, temptation, and deviltry of every sort, everything evil, frightful, tyrannical, brutal, and snake-like in man, serves as well for the advancement of the species man’ as their opposite.”

So it sounds like he was cool with all sorts of barbarism as well.

Axeman on December 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM

You know what’s REALLY funny bluster?

YOU don’t get to decide if you won a debate. That’s for the people to decide, but in cases where the debate topic is this topic nobody wins because its obvious that the theists will support a theist, and the atheists will support atheists.

Debates aren’t won by majority opinion though so whatever.

Claim that you won the debate all you like, it won’t change the fact that your god isn’t the god that possibly is.

LOL!

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM

And yours, too.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Ha ha ha

It’s so cute you believe that.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 2:57 PM

blink

what part of

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

is ambiguous?

Seem’s pretty cut and dry to me.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 2:58 PM

sauer, tell us all about your opinion on the establishment clause. Please? This thread is too quiet!

blink on December 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Blink, tell us why genocide is immoral first.

You seem very interested in other people’s opinions.

Let’s hear yours.

Stop dragging your feet.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM

I have NEVER defined morality as “obeying God”.

How about you define it for us instead of telling us what it isn’t?

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Of course I don’t decide if I won the debate. Just like a runner doesn’t decide if he won a race. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t KNOW that he won. I know that I won, and you helped! Thanks!

blink on December 6, 2011 at 3:02 PM

again with nothing other than bluster.

You must be a child to debate so? All full of confidence and bluster…

whatever. As I told Good Lt and Pablo earlier.

Sometimes you gotta learn to step away. When someone is as obstinate as you are you listening on a topic such as this… Well, have fun in your bliss, I mean ignorance.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM

You don’t even know that I’m not an atheist.

Not too worried about that.

I have NEVER defined morality as “obeying God”

Definition please….without using the term God.

Pablo Honey on December 6, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I still can’t believe that you need ME to tell you why genocide is immoral. What’s wrong with you? Only sociopaths don’t know why genocide is immoral. You must be a sociopath.

blink on December 6, 2011 at 3:05 PM

You seemed interested earlier, and now not so much.

So answer your own question for everyone. We know it’s wrong. Let’s see if you do.

We’re waiting.

Good Lt on December 6, 2011 at 3:07 PM

And do you think that Congress is making laws respecting the establishment of religion?

blink on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM

I can’t think of any off the top of my head but Christians like yourself are shoehorning religious Christian symbols into the public sphere like putting the Ten Commandments into courthouses and whatnot.

Anywho, have fun in your bliss.

I’m content just reading your inane comments and seeing the obtuse swagger of your childish debating tactics…

My head has a sore spot from smacking myself in the head with face palms after reading your fatuous comments.

SauerKraut537 on December 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Did I say Jainism is not a ‘real’ religion? I simply pointed out that Jains don’t have a creator god and are at least agnostic on that point.

If we take a simple definition of ‘agnostic’ to be one who lacks a belief in a god that is the ultimate creator and ruler of the universe, Jains certainly qualify.

Perceptron on December 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM

So Jains have a single point of intersection with your run-of-the-mill agnostic. That’s about it, though.

When atheists dream of their world with no Gods, they certainly aren’t dreaming of a world filled with Jains.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 6, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 15 16 17 18 19