Tebow out of the Slot?

Galeb said:

Someone who believes a negative is "proven" without any evidence doesn't qualify as a "free thinker" in my book. The term "god" is an abstract and malleable concept. Given our extremely limited, flawed understanding of the universe and the very nature of our own "experiences", coming to a definitive conclusion on the existence or nature of a god is purely speculation and defies the very idea of "free thinking".

Click to expand...

Nice argument from ignorance.

Galeb said:

Someone who believes a negative is "proven" without any evidence doesn't qualify as a "free thinker" in my book. The term "god" is an abstract and malleable concept. Given our extremely limited, flawed understanding of the universe and the very nature of our own "experiences", coming to a definitive conclusion on the existence or nature of a god is purely speculation and defies the very idea of "free thinking".

Click to expand...

Nice argument from ignorance.

Wordsmyth said:

Nice argument from ignorance.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means.

mosslost said:

There will be a Tebow "scandal" or "meltdown" or "deconversion" experience at some point. Personally I think Tebow will be a famous "free thinker" atheist someday. (Sincerely)

Click to expand...

Quite the indulgence in wishful thinking.

Froob said:

Okay that's cool man I'm not sensitive about it, just seems like people hate on him for no reason. Guy didn't invite the media cult to follow him as far as I know.

Click to expand...

It's not like he did a single thing, at all, to avoid the media or shut them out.

Galeb said:

I have no idea what this means.

Click to expand...

Google is your friend.

Marinlik said:

It's not like he did a single thing, at all, to avoid the media or shut them out.

Click to expand...

it's not like he ran without his shirt off in the rain in slow motion with ESPN cameras rolling

Galeb said:

Someone who believes a negative is "proven" without any evidence doesn't qualify as a "free thinker" in my book. The term "god" is an abstract and malleable concept. Given our extremely limited, flawed understanding of the universe and the very nature of our own "experiences", coming to a definitive conclusion on the existence or nature of a god is purely speculation and defies the very idea of "free thinking".

Click to expand...

Hopefully this doesn't derail things too much, but I think you may be operating under a common misconception of what the term atheist means. To not believe in something doesn't mean that you're 100% certain that no possible version of it could even theoretically exist. It just means you don't actively believe that it does exist. Even Richard Dawkins has pointedly refused to make that claim.

There are atheists out there who claim to have certainty that there is no god/gods (commonly known as a hard/strong atheist), and I agree that's an ignorant perspective. IMO they fall into the same trap that lots of religious folks do: claiming certainty in something that is inherently unknown and potentially unknowable.

But from my experience, that describes a small minority of atheists, especially once you get past the edgy teenage/early 20s crowd who are largely just acting out against their religious upbrinigngs. Almost all of the adult atheists I've met consider themselves agnostic (or soft) atheists: they don't actively believe in the existence of god/gods precisely because that knowledge is unknown and potentially unknowable. The existence of god/gods is certainly a possibility, but they're unwilling to commit to actively believing in something just because it theoretically might exist. If that was the standard, we'd be compelled to believe in a lot of certifiably insane stuff.

Galeb said:

Someone who believes a negative is "proven" without any evidence doesn't qualify as a "free thinker" in my book. The term "god" is an abstract and malleable concept. Given our extremely limited, flawed understanding of the universe and the very nature of our own "experiences", coming to a definitive conclusion on the existence or nature of a god is purely speculation and defies the very idea of "free thinking".

Click to expand...

Believing in a "god" is no different than believing in an Elf or magic fairies, same amount of evidence and logic. And believing in any of the "books" of the major religions is an even deeper absurdity.

Wordsmyth said:

Google is your friend.

Click to expand...

So your saying what I wrote is an "argument from ignorance"? I'm not sure if you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase, or misinterpreted what I wrote. An "argument from ignorance" says that something is true because there is no evidence to the contrary. Try rereading my post as I never said anything was true. The fundamental point of what I wrote is that, considering the flawed nature of our own perceptions and our extremely limited understanding of the universe, we can't come to a definitive conclusion of whether or not there is a god at this time.

The term atheist implies the belief that there is no possibility of the existence of any type of "god". IMO, such an assertion defies the very nature of "free thinking".

If only he could catch the football with the back of his head.

Galeb said:

So your saying what I wrote is an "argument from ignorance"? I'm not sure if you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase, or misinterpreted what I wrote. An "argument from ignorance" says that something is true because there is no evidence to the contrary. Try rereading my post as I never said anything was true. The fundamental point of what I wrote is that, considering the flawed nature of our own perceptions and our extremely limited understanding of the universe, we can't come to a definitive conclusion of whether or not there is a god at this time.

The term atheist implies the belief that there is no possibility of the existence of any type of "god". IMO, such an assertion defies the very nature of "free thinking".

Click to expand...

Your last sentence is pure Bull ****.

BradyFTW! said:

Not to get all political on this, but it seems like you're operating under an incorrect understanding of what the term atheist means. To not believe in something doesn't mean that you're 100% certain that no possible version of it could even theoretically exist. It just means you don't actively believe that it does exist. Even Richard Dawkins has pointedly refused to make that claim.

There are atheists out there who sincerely believe that they know there is not and cannot be any god or gods, and yeah, I agree that's an ignorant perspective. From my experience, almost all of the atheists I've met consider themselves agnostic atheists: they don't actively believe in the existence of god/gods precisely because that knowledge is unknown and potentially unknowable. The existence of god/gods is certainly a possibility, but it makes no sense to actively believe in something just because it's theoretically possible. If that was the standard, we'd have to believe in a lot of certifiably insane stuff.

Click to expand...

I used to call myself an atheist because I didn't "believe in a god", but I have been corrected several times by people since. They have, vehemently in some cases, argued that an "atheist" believes there is no possibility of any type of "god". After reading wikipedia, it seems that the word is used both ways.

We are veering off, it was better when we were questioning Tebow's sexuality

mosslost said:

Your last sentence is pure Bull ****.

Click to expand...

After looking up atheism, I now realize that it doesn't necessarily mean that the atheist believes there is no possibility of the existence of any type of god. That said, the premise of what I said remains true. With the information we have, the absolute denial of the possibility of the existence of any type of "god" defies the very nature of free thinking. If that is what you are calling ********, then I question your definition of "free thinker."

Are they having this conversation on the Red Sox board? Because its as likely that Tebow could hit a fastball as it is that he could player receiver at an NFL level.

Tebow might have made been decent H-back ... FB - receiving TE .... 3rd down back and special teams guy.

Not enough glory in it for him I guess .............

Two words....religion forum

mosslost said:

Believing in a "god" is no different than believing in an Elf or magic fairies, same amount of evidence and logic. And believing in any of the "books" of the major religions is an even deeper absurdity.

Click to expand...

Either your perception of "god" is far too narrow, or you are not "thinking freely".

Although I think that believing the stories and mythology of the major religions are fact is foolish, great wisdom can be found in most of them. Ancient cultures used stories to convey "messages" of morality to their young and "simple" people. These stories weren't intended to be interpreted as fact, but many contained valuable lessons. It was greedy people who turned these "stories" into "fact" and used them to increase their power. Many flawed "gods" gave too many too much power, so the truly devious consolidated them to one, perfect god to consolidate power and influence. Newer monotheistic religions tried to gobble up other monotheistic religions by adding to the old religion making their "prophets" and one "god" their own".

Regardless of the obvious power struggles and manipulation, the seeds of wisdom have not been completely stripped from those holy writings.

Galeb said:

I used to call myself an atheist because I didn't "believe in a god", but I have been corrected several times by people since. They have, vehemently in some cases, argued that an "atheist" believes there is no possibility of any type of "god". After reading wikipedia, it seems that the word is used both ways.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a fringe of 'hard' atheists who believe that anyone who doesn't pretend to have the certainty that they claim has no claim to the term. They're wrong, by the very definition of the term. The term theist is derived from the Greek word theos (god), and by definition it refers to someone who believes in god/gods.

An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not, as the Greek prefix a- means 'without'. So an atheist is someone who is without belief in god. The term indicates a simple lack of belief nothing more and nothing less. If you don't actively believe that god exists, then you're technically an atheist regardless of how much or how little certainty you have in that belief.

A lot of people think that agnosticism and atheism are inherently separate places on the same scale. Basically, that there's a sliding scale re: the certainty of your belief that has theists on one end, atheists on the other, and agnostics in the middle as people who are uncertain. But again, by the definition of the term, agnosticism/gnosticism is fundamentally separate from atheism/theism.

Gnosticism/agnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis (knowledge), and it describes your position on knowledge/knowability of the existence of god. It's an entirely separate scale from theism/atheism, and as a result you can have gnostic theists (people who are certain that god exists), agnostic theists (people who believe that god exists but are not certain), agnostic atheists (people who do not believe that god exists but are not certain) or gnostic atheists (people who are certain that god does not exist).

FWIW, I consider myself an agnostic atheist: I don't actively believe in god, but I also recognize that there's a ton out in the universe that's both unknown and unknowable to me. As a result, I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who claims to be 100% certain of either the existence or nonexistence of god/gods.