Mark Jackson, summed up in just a few words...
by Juicy Jay on Jan 25, 2012 11:25 AM PST
Email
Print
So, I decided to go on a kick watching basketball movies lately, and last night I happened to watch 1996's "Eddie" starring Whoopi Goldberg. Our beloved head coach, Mark Jackson, features in a somewhat prominent role as a man known lovingly as "Preacher" in the film, in which Whoopi Goldberg ends up as head coach of the Knicks. Whoopi wins a fan contest to coach the team for the 2nd half, and ends up being offered the job for the entire season as a publicity stunt.
Hmmmmm... So you mean to tell me this isn't even the first time Mark Jackson has been a central character in a story about somebody with no real coaching experience being hired as an NBA head coach as a publicity stunt?
The really sad part? Whoopi's Knicks made the playoffs. Not looking so good for Jackson's Dubs...
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
154 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I completely forgot about that movie
i sense a wave of images coming…
"I didn't hold up no middle fingers. My middle finger is crooked so it sticks out. Maybe that's what was showing." -Metta World Peace
by Butterknuckles on Jan 25, 2012 11:32 AM PST reply actions
oh, hahah
I thought it was going to be a link to this
Talent, Jackson said, isn’t the issue. He said it’s more about effort and resolve. In a word: toughness.
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
That’s delusional right there..
"If God made us in his image then he must be dumb too, and a little ugly on the side."
Frank Zappa
It's the Warriors fans way, so what's your point?
Sometimes delusions are better than reality!
Harbaugh -- "We're not into answering questions"
by Critical Roach on Jan 25, 2012 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
It’s really dumb to evaluate a coach based on what he can do, as a rookie head coach, in a season when he has no real training camp, no ability to run meaningful practices because of a compressed schedule, and when injuries have robbed the team of it’s floor leader and somebody who was expected to fill up about half of the team’s minutes at the center spot.
I don’t say this to claim that I think Jackson is going to be a good coach. What I do mean is, rather, if we assume some sort of rookie learning curve (and maybe a bigger than expected one based on his lack of coaching experience) and he was going to be a good coach, how would we know?
There are things I really want to see the team change that eventually will deserve to be laid at Jackson’s feet. But now? It hardly seems fair.
Again: I’m not saying he’s a good coach or that I particularly expect him to be a good coach. Rather, let me suggest that the only reasonable position is an agnostic one. We really have very little way of knowing.
The only opinions I have developed so far are that he is really into Jesus, and he needs to pull away about six inches from the post-game mic. I can hear each nose hair fluttering with his every breath…
RIP Kyrylo Fesenko 2011-2011
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jan 25, 2012 6:02 PM PST up reply actions
Love your prose...another addition to my GSOM quote list!
I can hear each nose hair fluttering with his every breath…
Agree he does need to back off from that mike…he seems close to swallowing it…I imagine that he must leave a lot of residue on it …..wonder how the follow up user feels…time for a Niles hanky rubdown.
by Only In Fairfax on Jan 26, 2012 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
The difference, with players, is that we have more information about who they are.
But yes, this is part of why I was saying that it was absurd to make conclusions about who Klay was likely to be five games into the season when a bunch of people on GSOM started calling him a bust.
On the other hand, a player like Monta is doing a lot of the same-old, same-old (although it was nice to see him stop shooting last night). At a certain point he is who he is as he’s well beyond his “rookie learning curve.”
I agree. Rookies are like a box of chocolates; you never know what u are going to get!
As for Monta, I agree, he is definitely a 20+ ppg shooting guard for any team that knows how to use him. Curry, is also a 20+ shooting guard for any team that knows how to use him. Both, are not over-6’5" shooting guards. Both, do not need to be! Both, are not point guards. Kemba is PG. CP is a PG. Jenkins is a PG.
Aren't you tired of these types in the bay area?
Mike Singletary, Hue Jackson, I mean seriously. I’m tired of coach’s and their buzz words. This isn’t about effort and resolve. This isn’t about toughness. This is about a young team without a point guard falling apart against a playoff team in the 4th quarter. This is about Mark Jackson not calling a timeout and trying to refocus as his squad blew a 20 point lead. This is about Mark Jackson not making a substitution and bringing in Nate. This is about Biedrins being absolutely worthless over the course of 48 minutes. This is about Curry and Ellis committing too many turnovers and not getting enough foul shots.
This is NOT about effort and resolve. Save the speeches for church MJ, It’s only been 16 games and I’m turning off to the rhetoric.
That’s fine, the rhetoric isn’t for you. What matters is how the players respond to him.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
Wha?
Did I miss something? Did the Warriors have a timeout left at the end? He didn’t call any timeouts on that run? The guys just got hesitant and played miserably against the pressure from the Grizzle. So I guess you’re saying that you don’t want your best players on the court with the game on the line. And if the backups couldn’t save the situation, you’d be complaining about what kind of an idiot coach doesn’t play his best players.
I’m not sure the Biedrins thing applies to your argument, not sure why you bring that up in a rant about the coach. I thought he did an ok job at center, especially considering our limitted options.
by Ice Watter In His Veins! on Jan 25, 2012 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
I guess what I am saying is that there is nothing that you stated that is not true:
Biedrins has been sucking consistently, and should not be starting. Of course, we are very thin up front. Neither a Curry, nor, Monta, are bonafide PGS, and as the season progresses it is beginning to show (and, the turnovers). I though of the same (Nate), when we started to blow it. So, I cannot say I disagree with you. The pieces we have are resolved and trying; unfortunately, there are not enough pieces, and the ones we have are the wrong ones!
as i said in the other post about his leadership
he has no business being a head coach. his philosophy on every telecast was “good offense beats good defense”—enough said.
Do you really think you know the dynamics of how he connects with players? That you can get a good look at that just from what he said as a commentator or during timeouts when the camera is on him?
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2012 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
That you can get a good look at that just from what he said as a commentator or during timeouts when the camera is on him?
I find it interesting that lacob would hire a preacher for a team based in the bay area. This is probably the most practical and least religious part of the whole dang country so it makes me wonder if he don’t understand his customers or if he just wants to piss us off?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 25, 2012 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
Curry and Robinson are pretty darn religious. Also, ethnic people that grew up in poverty make up the vast majority of Christians…and pro athletes. Come to think of it, isn’t local boy Jeremy Linn a pretty hardcore Jesus freak? Baaaaaaaaaahhhhh they’re everywhere!
RIP Kyrylo Fesenko 2011-2011
by The Bimbo Coles Experience on Jan 25, 2012 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
Come to think of it, isn’t local boy Jeremy Linn a pretty hardcore Jesus freak?
I haven’t the slightest idea but I’ve heard he’s smart so maybe he was referring to shuttlesworth?
I got no problem with athletes believing in religion as they often don’t finish school but I’d hope that management knows enough science to understand what’s wrong with the listing ship SOS Dub?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 25, 2012 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
ur funny
thinking that being smart and religion can’t coexist. Jeremy Lin is very much a believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Christian faith.
I’ve heard he’s smart so maybe he was referring to shuttlesworth?
as opposed to Christ obviously
I got no problem with athletes believing in religion as they often don’t finish school
Um…Steph Curry is a Christian. Shane Battier is a Christian. Michael Redd, Derek Fisher, Luke Ridnour, Kyle Korver, Anthony Parker. Do I need to go on. You said you didn’t have a problem because they don’t finish school. Do you have one with the ones that did?
I’d hope that management knows enough science to understand what’s wrong
science is not what’s going to get this team on the right track
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
science is not what’s going to get this team on the right track
mother nature wins every time. You might think you are special but she don’t care.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
mother nature wins every time. You might think you are special but she don’t care.
True. Maybe that’s why Christians look to God to find understanding and meaning in the consolations and desolations in their life, and believe that we’re more than just carbon and chemicals.
Bimbo, get off your soapbox. Or, since you seem so bitter and hostile against the religious, does that mean I can start attacking naturalists and atheists ad hominem on this board?
And Skep:
I got no problem with athletes believing in religion as they often don’t finish school
What kind of ignorant talk is that?
Maybe that’s why Christians look to God to find understanding and meaning in the consolations and desolations in their life, and believe that we’re more than just carbon and chemicals.
if you make the effort to understand carbons and chemicals you’ll find a more fascinating reality than those old scriptures.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 7:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
How then do you explain scientists that are religious?
maybe incompetent or unconfident :>) ?? Who knows what their past contains?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
Let it go
He’s just trying to get a rise out of you. His comments speak for themselves. Let his ignorance take care of the rest.
u perhaps the least tolerance for religion I’ve ever seen
you are confusing tolerance with belief. I got plenty of tolerance for whatever people want to do with their lives but I don’t have to believe it. Properly applied religion can lead to some positive results in society but it’s an inefficient way to get there compared to education.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
u suggested that scientists were incompetent or unconfident if they believed in a religion. maybe tolerance wasn’t the right word, I’m not sure yet.
i just don’t see how the statement you made is anything but an inability to accept that they’re ability to conduct the scientific method is not affected by their religion
so it is in inability to accept their competence as a scientists that are also religious, even if it isn’t an outright intolerance of religion.
in the same way, you are unable to accept the possibility of Jackson being a good coach because he is religious?
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
You realize the smartest people in the world aren't religious.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 26, 2012 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
This guy seems like a pretty smart fellow to me…
The exception is not the rule.
It’s also disappointing he made the change but at least he’s not using religion to cause bad things. I don’t control how people live .
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 26, 2012 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
You realize the smartest people in the world aren't religious.
People can be “smart” in many different ways. Some are great at certain things but suck at others.
For example the rich guy who’s smart enough to build a fortune exploiting the labor of others but can’t understand why it’s not right?
There’s so many religions in the world and if one is right the others are wrong so odds are the smartest folks are not in the that group:>)
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
By smartest I mean intellect.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
in the same way, you are unable to accept the possibility of Jackson being a good coach because he is religious?
MFJ could be a great coach and still be religious but he could also be a great coach and not be religious? The only way it would matter is if it makes him blind to the truth of a situation. Perhaps it comforts him to the point that it overrides any negatives? Same thing for scientists, they often work in cubbyholes where their grasp of the big scene is not important.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
See: Christopher Hitchens
One of the most positive influences on the world in modern times, imo.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 26, 2012 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
You can't be serious
That chauvinistic, alcoholic, gluttonous loudmouth who penned all talk and no substance?
A willingness to explore alternatives, to hear out opposing views, to occasionally doubt oneself is the appropriate way to pursue real intellectual thought and better people’s lives. Hitchens did none of that.
Your tirade is a prime example of what he says religion does to people.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
And he and his brethren more often than not were the instigators
Between believers and non-believers it used to be live and let live. Now it’s just one pissing contest. Hitchens had plenty of urine to add to it, sadly.
No.
The instigators are people who believe in something so batshit insane that if you didn’t call it God, you’d be locked up in a mental asylum.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 1:47 AM PST up reply actions
Seriously.
Rename God to something like John, tell people that “John” talks to you everyday, that John created the universe, that you pray to John everyday. People would call you crazy. What’s even crazier is you have as much proof for this John guy as you do for this god guy.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 2:05 AM PST up reply actions
the people you believe are smart
and others believe are smart
will not always coincide, obviously. like you said, its a manner of opinion
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
There aren't that many.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 26, 2012 11:06 PM PST up reply actions
there aren't very many deeply religious people in general
so those able to hold onto and stand up to their beliefs in a field like science (where many religious scientists actually become ridiculed for their stance) would also likely be a small percentage
you mistake claiming a religion for true and thorough belief in it.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
if you make the effort to understand carbons and chemicals you’ll find a more fascinating reality than those old scriptures.
I don’t pretend to be a physicist, biologist, chemist, geneticist, astronomer, psychologist, etc. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t made an effort to at least try and delve into these areas and gain a layman’s understanding (and isn’t that always suspect?).
What I don’t follow with your logic is, since I have made what most would probably call at least a feeble attempt to understand, for just two examples, how DNA works, or how improbable this universe, let alone life on this planet, is, why understanding the natural world somehow hinders my ability to believe in a higher power, or how belief in a God somehow makes me appreciate the natural world less. Just because I believe in God doesn’t mean I check my brain at the door.
by ender2148 on Jan 26, 2012 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Also
“More fascinating reality than those old scriptures”
What about you? Are you a scientist? Do you have an Ph.D in any of these departments? Are you a critical scholar of
anysacred text from any religious tradition? You know, the kind of study you need to know Classic Greek, Latin, Arabic, or Sanskrit for? Have you published papers for any literary journals lately?
If so, well done, if not, what makes you think you know any better? You could benefit from doing some research of your own and actually look in the commentary section of sacred texts. Maybe then you wouldn’t pass judgment on texts that formed the bases of most of the world’s moral and philosophical convictions, not to mention helping develop the scientific that naturalists champion as their manifesto.
Have you published papers for any literary journals lately?
Haha, you really think I’d be hanging on a BB fansite if I had literary cred? No way, I’d be eatin caviar and hanging with the dean’s wife if that were the case.
Nope I’m just a surveyor who’s spent too much time observing the world in action. Spend enough time out in the sun and you start to see patterns.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 11:45 PM PST up reply actions
More power to you then
But just because you have come to your own conclusions about life and the mysteries of the universe with some degree of certainty doesn’t mean you should go and bash the religious for being seemingly of lesser intelligence. That’s quite the opposite of tolerance. You’re better than that.
By the way, I hate that word. “Tolerance.” Makes it sound like people have to put up with others inconveniently (yeah, yeah, insert snarky comment here). I prefer respect for one another. All parties involved have to earn it.
If being religious was some innocent act that didn't cause harm, I wouldn't care what people believed.
The problem is religion has killed (physically and psychology) and repressed more people than anything else in human history. If it weren’t destroying the world (as it is) I simply wouldn’t care what you believe. But if your belief makes you teach your kids that belief and they grow up to hate homosexuals and muslims (as the bible teaches) you continue the cycle.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 12:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The bible’s one of the most repulsive pieces of literature ever written.
Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. [Exodus 20: 8-9]
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. (Exodus 31 verse 15)
Lets go kill everyone who works on Sundays. Doesn’t teach hate.
Anyone who blasphemes the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. – Lev. 24:16
Words can be twisted! This obviously is a peaceful message.
“‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” – Lev 20:10
We should kill your idol Kobe Bryant based on the words of the bible. Not hateful at all however.
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.— Lev 20: 9
Words are twisted! Obviously there is a different meaning to this!
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. – Lev 20: 13
Homosexuals should be put to death. Of course, this is not a hateful message in your eyes.
"Woe to the world for temptations to sin![a] For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! 8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. Matthew 18:7-9
Just great stuff.
Let a women learn in silence with all submissiveness,. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 1 Tim 2F*ck women. They don’t deserve any rights? What a peaceful message.
Shall I go on? To believe what you just said requires one to be: A) ignorant , B) a liar, or C) someone who just needs a little straying in the right direction. Which one are you?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 1:51 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The bible’s one of the most repulsive pieces of literature ever written.
haha, it’s a product of it’s time. Things seem repulsive as we gain knowledge and move beyond them but those old boys were just playin the hand they were dealt.
If you analyze the things in bibles or whatever they want to call religious texts you’ll find they are usually a handbook for survival and propagation of their society and made sense for the given time and place.Then as time passes the laws no longer make common sense but they are entrenched in the fabric of the society and defended by the church who wants to hang on to the power they have accumulated so they continue and generate strife among the various religions.
Some day we’ll move beyond it but it would be nice if they made them put expiration dates on the religions like they do canned goods.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
This is a perfect example of a point I was about to make to earlier when you said that religion controls people
But let me start by addressing your points….
The problem is religion has killed (physically and psychology) and repressed more people than anything else in human history.
Wow. That’s funny, cause the last time I check the stats, I counted 22 countries of authoritarian, totalitarian, and professed atheist regimes that killed over 150,000,000 people—in the 20th century alone. The total of recorded deaths attributed to a religious cause dating from 200 BC to the 20th century? A little over 2 million.
But if your belief makes you teach your kids that belief and they grow up to hate homosexuals and muslims (as the bible teaches) you continue the cycle.
One of my colleagues at work is gay. Two of my best friends are bisexual, and two others are Muslim. I love them because they are human beings made in God’s image, because of who they are, not despite it.
If it weren’t destroying the world (as it is) I simply wouldn’t care what you believe.
And this is where my bullshit detector goes off. Religion doesn’t destroy this world, science doesn’t destroy this world, people with power destroy this world, and they destroy it when people like you stop thinking for themselves! Every single thing you have said in this post is just parroting Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and every other knee-jerk, smug, pseudo-intellectual in the media who, just by publishing their works and getting critical acclaim from it, means that you now have fodder to fool yourself in thinking that humans have it all figured out! That we are masters of our universe! Nothing is off limits, we are free to do as we please! Do you really think we’re making “progress?” Do you really think all the technological and medical advances of this materialistic, individualistic, or hedonistic society of the 21st century is liberating us?
You need a reality check, son. Just like most people know to not let Fox News force feed them crap talking points, you should try not buying into all the bullshit you get from MSNBC, the Huffington Post, or the Daily Kos and instead do some research and some critical thinking. Otherwise, your so-called knowledge isn’t even that; it’s just blind faith with a different bias.
I don't read any of the sites you mentioned.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 1:49 AM PST up reply actions
re: You need a reality check, son.
the bible says to kill gays, and that most people will end up burning in hell for eternity
according to the Bible, Ghandi would be in hell, along with Socrates, Walt Whitman, and the list goes on…
although I don’t want to get involved in this kind of discussion on a Dubs blog, I hope that you folks are at least willing to admit that a fair portion of your organization’s messages are extremely hurtful to a large population
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 27, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What I don’t follow with your logic is, since I have made what most would probably call at least a feeble attempt to understand, for just two examples, how DNA works, or how improbable this universe, let alone life on this planet, is,
the logic is we don’t have to understand the whole thing we just gotta understand that it is understandable. It’s like the journey of a thousand miles one step at a time. The guy didn’t just say a journey of a thousand miles is impossible I need a god to get to texas, he thought it out and figured out how to do it. Logic tells me that when the understandable is made understood it won’t be that any of the multiple books written by old scholars is the answer.They all had their own agendas and they didn’t have the best tools to work with. You might as well start from scratch right now and write your own bible cause you know a lot more than those old dudes knew.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
And logic, or at least my own experience, tells me
that this world is understandable because there is a guiding force behind it that’s giving us clues to His handiwork, and we’re to investigate that using the brains we’ve been given to strive after those traces of the divine. Newton believed the same. So did Pascal, and so did Einstein (the latter, obviously, was not a theist but a deist). Just because the “how” of processes in the universe become more easier to articulate by our feeble minds doesn’t mean we always have too great a clue as to “why” it’s there/is happening in the first place. So I agree that we should continue to keep finding those clues—to just say “God did it” is foolish, and a disservice to the intelligence He has granted us.
But that doesn’t mean I believe we’re going to find an answer for every question through pure natural methods. Here’s a question—why us? Why here? You can bark all you want and say that this is all there is. And you’ll say I’ve just missed the exact point you were trying to make above—that one day, we’ll be able to detect whether or not were just one in a billion universes out there—if that theory is even true—another valuable piece of information to render the “old texts” useless. But at this point it’s pure speculation. And again, we’d still be just describing, stating the “how,” not answering the “why.” I think there are some things that we can never quantify, that require a leap of, yes, faith, to accept.
You might as well start from scratch right now and write your own bible cause you know a lot more than those old dudes knew.
And again I suggest that you actually read religious texts and think about what the purposes of those texts are, before you overgeneralizing about what you think you know or cherry-picking quotes that supposedly demonstrate how “dated” or “harmful” they are.
I think there are some things that we can never quantify, that require a leap of, yes, faith, to accept.
So if we can’t find out why something happened, lets just make up a fairytale to accept it? This is what religion does to people. It makes otherwise good people ignore logic like this.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
Maybe you missed this part smart guy
So I agree that we should continue to keep finding those clues—to just say "God did it" is foolish, and a disservice to the intelligence He has granted us.
I hate “God of the gaps” just as much as the skeptic, but at some point the quantifiable and methodological hit a brick wall smack in the face, and you’re left with the metaphysical, moral, and philosophical questions.
Here’s an example: this universe, or a compact, yet infinitely powerful mass of energy just, for reasons unbeknownst to us, began to expand at colossal levels, and, with the" coincidentally" favorable conditions large levels of gas, matter, and energy bonding into stars, stars forming galaxies and systems with orbiting masses of rock and chemicals, with some of those rocks solidifying into spherical masses which develop atmospheres, one such planet (maybe two, maybe many, many, many, many more) developed conditions for what we call organic life to rise out of inorganic material, and evolve over billions of years to engender a intelligent species (along with millions of other life forms) which can sit down and become armchair philosophers about their existence, the meaning of life and Warriors basketball (with those categories often overlapping).
What makes more sense:
A) A divine being “did it?”
B) Immutable, descriptive “laws of nature” were enacted by mere chance?
C) It was part of a chain reaction caused by a multiverse, which largely pushes the response back to A) or B) anyways?
Before you give your knee-jerk response, think about if any one of them are more true or falsifiable than the other, and you might see why some scratch their head at comments like the one you just made.
First off:
Why assume a deity even exists? The burden of proof is on you. I’m not agnostic; I think that’s a cop out to some extent but true knowledge exists in knowing you know nothing! Don’t you think it’s odd that there are thousands of religions on the earth all claiming they have answers for everything, all claiming they’re the only correct one? Why would you even believe in a religion like Christianity (that legitimately claimed the earth was created 4000 years ago in a seven day week) to answer your questions of how the universe was created? They gave you their answer! It’s not right, but the answer “came” from God. So either you believe them or you don’t. You can’t accept partial truths of it, imo.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 12:43 AM PST up reply actions
Why assume one doesn’t? There isn’t a need for a burden of proof on anyone. I’m not here to convince you or Skeptic of my belief (as much as I wish I were capable).
Separately, carbon-dating is a somewhat confusing proposition. How could we possibly discover the date a certain rock was buried in the earth’s crust if we have no timeline to compare it to? We don’t have measurements dating back 4000 years, let alone 5 billion. You most assuredly don’t understand the extreme intricacies of such of complex science (neither do I, very few on the planet do, and not even all of them are in agreement). Why accept the majority scientific opinion at face value? One of the things history has taught us, is that accepting the propositions of scientists at face value is not always the correct decision. Even widely held beliefs and theories can crumble in a breakthrough of new evidence.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
Burden of proof is on you
And irresponsible speculation or attribution of the creation of the universe to descriptive “laws of nature” (read: not prescriptive, not agents of their own) isn’t a far more outlandish proposition than saying a divine creator was behind it? Please. Yet some scientists claim it as fact without a lick of evidence to back it up.
Second, you suffer from the same problem Skeptic does with regards to acting as if every single denomination of Christianity reads the Bible in a completely literalistic way. Not the case. You have wisdom literature, poetic language, prescriptive codes of law, stories of greater spiritual truth, and Gospels and letters aimed at a specific audience. Agendas? Sure. But don’t you think some of the context, content, and meaning for us may have gotten lost in translation when copied into different language? And maybe there’s more to the text than just how we interpret the literal context? Since you’re playing fast and loose and Genesis, I feel compelled to point out that not only has the creation story been interpreted in seven stages (or, seven days), of creation that aren’t given an exact time frame, you should probably also know that, if you actually read the first few chapters, there are two creation stories. Thus, it probably wasn’t written to be a complete scientific primer on how we got here. For crying out loud, in Genesis 3 God says “if you eat of the tree, you shall die.” Yet, surprisingly, once they eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, they’re not choking on the ground. So it probably means a spiritual death, or a state of separation from. See how context makes all the difference?
The other reason Christians believe in what they believe is this guy called Jesus of Nazereth. Ever heard of him? Virtually every scholar who’s an authority on this (including secular scholars) agree that he was born around 6 AD, preached for 3 years around his homeland, was crucified on hill, and was buried in a rock tomb. Speculation on what happened after still remains. Jesus, however, did claim he was the son of God, or YHWH, which was blasphemy in his day. NO OTHER WORLD RELIGION has as its central figure a human being who was historically verified to be alive and who claimed to be God Himself. Not Muhammed (pbuh), not Buddha, not Krishna, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on.
That’s the difference between Christianity and other world religions. It’s central figure who claimed to be human AND divine was either a liar, a lunatic, or the son of God, and thus living proof of God in word, deed, and being. You can have your doubts; I’m not here to convert you. I’m just telling you why I believe, and why people like Brownie or Naticus believe, and why Brandon Rush or my boy Steph Curry believe. I’m also telling you that if Jesus really did rise from the dead, it MUST change the way we all look at life. And for me, that outlook on life offers me more (and I believe this world more) than what any secular society has had to offer in history.
The burden of proof is on the believer.
Don’t get it twisted. There’s no proof for any sort of deities and all kinds of proof against it.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 1:48 AM PST up reply actions
NO OTHER WORLD RELIGION has as its central figure a human being who was historically verified to be alive
As more people do research, this is becoming doubted.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, there's considerable debate as to whether Jesus lived.
There’s a rather conspicuous lack of archelogical evidence to back up the claim that he lived, even in cases where you would EXPECT to find it.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but no, actually, scholars don’t agree that Jesus lived anywhere along the lines of the (non-supernatural) elements of the story that we all know about him.
There is far, far, far more evidence to suggest that Mohammed lived than there is to suggest that Jesus lived.
None of this argues for the divinity of either of them, mind you, or against it. But you can’t claim that there’s broad secular historical support for the notion of a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of god/god. There isn’t.
This is part of why the James Ossurary (later proven to be fake) was considered for a moment to be such a big deal. It was going to be the first major piece of archeological evidence that appeared to directly support the claim that this guy actually lived.
Disagree
Lucien, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and the Babylonian Talmud are all examples of ancient historians or historical artifacts as early as 62 AD which make reference to the “Christus,” “Yeshu,” or “Yeshua,” the latter being references to the Hebraic translation of Jesus.
Like you say, though, I’m not trying to point to his divinity, only arguing that while many may disagree on certain parts of his life, most don’t question that there was a “historical Jesus” as I described above.
And GSC, quit throwing out strawman or false assertions. Who are these researchers you speak of, since you know so well? Give me some evidence.
Well, yeah, but even by 62 AD you're talking about 30ish years after his death.
In an age of no printing presses and limited literacy, that’s a really long time.
I mean, yes, it seems quite likely that there was some figure who existed who these stories coalesced around. But at a certain point it becomes like the old argument about Homer: words to the effect of “The Illiad wasn’t written by Homer, but rather by another man of that name.” Obviously these stories didn’t come from nowhere.
But the absence of contemporary archeological evidence as well as some rather key omissions (places you would expect to find evidence but do not) makes it hard to say what resemblance the historically-accepted jesus had to do with the figure being talked about in the ’60s, if anything.
That's unreasonable
While I agree that literacy was certainly limited and most of the Gospels were passed on orally early in the Christian movement, the earliest manuscripts were written, edited, copied, and distributed by 100 A.D. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus’ ascension or 30 years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses who could confront heretical accounts.
To compare, the only writings we have of Socrates comes from his students like Plato and Aristotle, among others, in about four secondary accounts, yet nobody denies his existence, right? And if we compare Jesus to Socrates, there is a difference—Jesus had more accounts written about him by people who were alive when he was, by both followers and non-believers.
And re: archeological evidence? You said it yourself as a response to Skep down below—absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. You mentioned James’ Ossuary as refutation—what about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the pool of Bethesda as proof? It has to cut both ways.
Well, we have different sense of the facts, and without wanting to dive into research I’m going to let some of this lie, except insomuch as to say that I do not think there is broad historical agreement that the gospels “were still penned by either the original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses who could confront heretical accounts.”
When you say a document was distributed by 100AD, you’re talking about 60-70 years past the events they’re describing. I think you’re underestimating the impact of that much time in that era.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you would expect such absence, such as in Roman judicial records which contradict things like the names of officials mentioned in the gospels. In such a case, the available evidence isn’t just absence.
I’ve never heard anyone claim the Dead Sea Scrolls as an argument for the historical jesus. That’s an argument about which I can’t comment. The Pool of Bethesda suggests that some of the elements of the gospel were written in by someone familiar with Jerusalem of that era, but nothing more. If you compare it to, say, the archeological evidence supporting what we know of, say, Julius Cesar, that may make it clear how little we know about the human being who is at the origin of the myths surrounding Jesus.
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 27, 2012 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
:sigh: not again.
There are no scholars who agree with those comparisons. Find me the source and I have a feeling you will give me ten forums with a link to one other that has no credible scholars backing any of her assertions.
Do you guys even research this stuff or just accept it as evidence because one idiot puts out an ebook?
What part of it are you taking issue with?
Are you doubting that these other dieties had virgin births, or what, exactly?
Dubs picture above
Drawing “remarkable parallels” between Jesus and other mythical figures. The Horus ones are twisted in the first place. And for Krishna, well, straight from Wikipedia:
Based on scriptural details and astrological calculations the date of Krishna’s birth, known as Janmashtami,45 is 18 July 3228 BCE and departed on 3102 BCE. Krishna belonged to the Vrishni clan of Yadavas from Mathura,[citation needed] and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva. Mathura was the capital of the Yadavas, to which Krishna’s parents Vasudeva and Devaki belonged. The king Kansa, Devaki’s brother,46 had ascended the throne by imprisoning his father, King Ugrasena. Afraid of a prophecy that predicted his death at the hands of Devaki’s eighth son, Kansa had the couple locked into a prison cell. After Kansa killed the first six children, and Devaki’s apparent miscarriage of the seventh (which was actually a secret transfer of the infant to Rohini as Balarama), Krishna was born.
It also goes against what I learned in college about Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhagavata Purana, and other commentators’ analysis.
I'd look up the rest
But why should I bother? Dubs is the ones making the claims. Burden of proof is on him.
I wasn't asking you for proof.
I was asking you which ones you were objecting to.
if you’re objecting to all of them, that would have been just fine to say.
Yeah, sorry for the rudeness
I tend to get a little annoyed when I see these same things pop up over and over because people uncritically accept it.
ok, I'm here, this will be my last visit to this thread though...let's get back to talking about the Dubs!!!
First of all, your problem with Krishna doesn’t make sense to me…and yes, I understand that the image is not exactly an accurate portrayal, but the story is that Krishna was not Devaki’s child, but son of god, whom she conceived miraculously.
not born of a virgin, I can live with that, but it is a story of immaculate conception…
here is one citation (from actual Hindu text)
and another (scholarly reference)
still leaves, a TON of other, strangely parallel, pre-exisitng mythos to address.
I mean, I know it is the chosen religion and all that, but don’t you find it just a little odd, that so many christian holidays correspond EXACTLY to some pre-exisitng pagan (and other dates)?
-Xmas is pretty clearly stolen from the Sumerians, Greeks, and pagans, among others.
-Easter is the spring fertility festival
(bunnies and eggs are symbols of fertility, not Jesus)
here is some stuff from the History channel
In the early years of Christianity, Easter was the main holiday; the birth of Jesus was not celebrated. In the fourth century, church officials decided to institute the birth of Jesus as a holiday. Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention date for his birth (a fact Puritans later pointed out in order to deny the legitimacy of the celebration). Although some evidence suggests that his birth may have occurred in the spring (why would shepherds be herding in the middle of winter?), Pope Julius I chose December 25. It is commonly believed that the church chose this date in an effort to adopt and absorb the traditions of the pagan Saturnalia festival.
in summary, you (and any religious group) are perfectly entitled to believe as you please. It just seems like an extreme stretch to pretend like the organized religious body of Christianity has not waged (a largely successful) battle to co-opt pre-existing global religious ceremonial dates
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 30, 2012 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
Oh, I see. In that case we seem to be talking past each other
It just seems like an extreme stretch to pretend like the organized religious body of Christianity has not waged (a largely successful) battle to co-opt pre-existing global religious ceremonial dates
I’m not trying to do that. Far from it. In fact, I’ve actually taught the exact same thing to my freshmen Catholicism classes that you’ve stated above. Indeed, the early Church was trying to celebrate the birth of Jesus in the beginnings of winter in order to better reach out to and convert the pagans, as well as dissuade Jewish converts and Gentiles from participating in the festivals of the Roman Empire. It’s the same with the Yule log and presents which originated from pagan festivals (not to mention the legendary tales of St. Nicholas’ compassion for the poor which we’ve commercialized into Santa Claus).
But even if you look at the Gospels it states that he was born in a time when the fields were sprouting and shepherds were gathering their flock. That would happen in early spring, say March or April, not December. So yes, the attempt to convert pagans, in addition to the early Church (which would later become the Catholic Church) wanting to celebrate the Savior’s entrance into the world as a light in the “darkness,” were the primary motivations in celebrating Christmas just around the Winter Solstice.
That I agree with. What I took issue with was the sweeping generalizations that most people make about the Jesus/Krishna/Mithra/Horus comparisons (the Dionysus “parallel” is a new one to me.)
First of all, your problem with Krishna doesn’t make sense to me…and yes, I understand that the image is not exactly an accurate portrayal, but the story is that Krishna was not Devaki’s child, but son of god, whom she conceived miraculously.
not born of a virgin, I can live with that, but it is a story of immaculate conception…
Fair enough, but don’t you feel like that’s significant enough of a difference? And there are other claims trying to link Jesus to Krishna that are bogus: their foster-fathers (Nanda was a cow-herd, not a carpenter like Joseph), infant Hunts (Kamsa was targeting Devaki’s children but couldn’t even bring his “wicked” heart to bring harm to woman and child, where as Herod did not care which boys under 2 were slaughtered), their resurrections and the implications of each one (I won’t go into that, to many ways to list why they’re different).
The devil is in the details. And when you look at the scriptural references for the Hindu and Christian texts and understand their theological implications, the details do matter! Same goes with Jesus comparisons to other man-gods.
Why assume a deity even exists?
The short answer to this is the experience of the divine. There is a class of human experience which defies other categorization.
You may not have had that experience, and that’s fine. I considered myself an agnostic until I did.
Now, yes, certainly, it’s possible to explain away individual experiences. But at a certain point the amount of work you have to put into explaining away certain experiences starts to feel like something of an edifice – you’re explaining things away because you’ve made an a priori decision to explain it away.
Don’t you think it’s odd that there are thousands of religions on the earth all claiming they have answers for everything, all claiming they’re the only correct one?
Well, wait a second. Isn’t this true of many other fields, as well?
I mean, right now there are scientists who disagree all over the world. Thousands of them. Sometimes you can even divide them into camps (eg “string theorists” vs “multiversers”). They’re all convinced that they’re correct and those who disagree with them are wrong.
Some of those theories, by the way (like the multirverse theory) are by definition untestable.
My own personal hypothesis is that most religions have their origins in the direct experience of the divine, but that experience is mutated by the fact that humans are imperfect trasmitters of information. eg, the bible wasn’t codified until several hundred years after Jesus is alleged to have lived. There’s no way that story would be recorded accurately even if those doing the recording were acting with complete integrity and motivated by nothing other than the search for the truth (which I’m willing to wager they weren’t).
You can’t accept partial truths of it, imo.
Why not? Not speaking as a Christian here, but isn’t this how we treat every other text. If I give you a history book, don’t you read it and evaluate it based on what else you know about history, how strong an argument it lays out for various events, etc? You might take some of it as truth, some of it as interpretation of truth, and some of it as the author’s wild theorizing.
Why should we treat a book which was written (at a minimum) of multiple generations after the events it covered differently than we’d treat, say, a history of the George W. Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq?
You may not have had that experience, and that’s fine. I considered myself an agnostic until I did.
You had a divine experience? I’m not asking you to tell the story but how did you come to the conclusion this was a divine experience? If you can’t, then it doesn’t do me much good, to be honest.
I mean, right now there are scientists who disagree all over the world. Thousands of them. Sometimes you can even divide them into camps (eg "string theorists" vs "multiversers"). They’re all convinced that they’re correct and those who disagree with them are wrong.This is completely different than religion. Science is something with actual logic and evidence to back it up. I’m glad there is debate in the scientific community on so many of these things. Relgions primarily get into a pissing contest regarding their beliefs and none of them have any actual proof, unlike science.
Why not? Not speaking as a Christian here, but isn’t this how we treat every other text.Except they’re binding. We’re supposed to believe the whole and full truth about certain parts but then ignore the rest?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
I’m not asking you to tell the story but how did you come to the conclusion this was a divine experience?
I call it an experience of the divine for a lack of better words to explain it. Perhaps “a moment of enlightenment” is an easier term to use, but, having had the experience, to me they amount to the same thing.
It involves seeing and understanding patterns of existence that are beyond my normal sensory boundaries, extreme empathy, unusual clarity and joy. Words are very poor at describing it, but it’s certainly consistent with descriptions of enlightment or states reached by mystics in various religions.
It’s not the experience of a grandfatherly old man reaching out of the clouds. I’m tempted to say that it’s more an experience of the divine as the sum totality of all that is, except that I know to athiests that sounds like I’m just putting another word on “nature” which is not what the experience was.
I don’t expect my description of it to “do you much good,” but it’s one of those things where a description of the experience is but a pale reflection of the experience itself. (But this is hardly unqiue. Describing the experience you have from seeing a great painting or reading a great book or having great sex is a pale reflection of that experience, too, isn’t it).
Science is something with actual logic and evidence to back it up.
Sometimes, yes.
But find an experimental physicist and ask him to give you evidence to back up the multiverse theory. Or, heck, here’s an easier one: dark matter. Do you know what dark matter is? it’s an explanation for the fact that the theory of gravity is off by something like 85%. There is no evidence for dark matter other than that the theory of gravity doesn’t work. Yet everyone agrees that “dark matter” exists … when it’s just as reasonable an argument that the theory of gravity is just wrong when applied beyond a certain scale.
Relgions primarily get into a pissing contest regarding their beliefs and none of them have any actual proof, unlike science.
I think you need to hang out with more scientists. What evidence is there for string theory? It’s actually rather hard to get hired as a theoretical physicist at a major university if you’re not a string theorist, but when you start looking for the evidence for string theory, well … it doesn’t exist. It’s a set of equations somebody came up with which don’t quite work, but if they did work they would explain a lot of things we already see.
Science obviously has a tremendous amount of practical value, and I’m not trying to dismiss it. It’s self-questioning in a way that most mainstream religions aren’t, and that’s a good thing.
Ideally a religion is also positing a testable hypothesis: this is a path towards a happier and more satisfying life. The fact that sometimes religion gets the answer to that question wrong no more means that religion is fundamentally flawed than the fact that science gets a lot of stuff wrong means that science is fundamentally flawed.
Except they’re binding. We’re supposed to believe the whole and full truth about certain parts but then ignore the rest?
What do you mean “binding?” I am not someone who finds much in the way of truth in the bible, mind you – I’m not a Christian – but I fail to see why the bible should be read more literally than other books (especially because of the number of contradictions in it).
So say “We’re supposed to believe” but why? Supposed to according to whom? Why does the fact that there are some people who say that you must believe every word of the bible mean that those people are correct? (I mean, there are some people who think that everything they hear on Fox News is true, but that’s not an argument that Fox News was wrong when they reported that Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, is it?)
Just because the "how" of processes in the universe become more easier to articulate by our feeble minds doesn’t mean we always have too great a clue as to "why" it’s there/is happening in the first place.
You are making it harder than it needs to be, the how and the why are the same thing, the matter works the way it works because that’s how it works. We have no choice in the workings of the matter, we are part of it and of both the how and the why. Sure it would be nice to have a better viewpoint and better tools to see our own place in the whole composition but it’s not necessary for one note to know the whole symphony for it to fulfill it’s purpose.
If you start with your own unique place in the universe and examine the things around you till you understand them then move out a bit and see how the next layer works, etc. you’ll never get to the end because it’s endless but each level or layer would be understandable in time and you’d find the reason is all there in the way it works, no divine intervention is needed when things work the way they work, as divine intervention would also be subject to the way things work. Now if you wanna call the way things work god or allah or krisha or whatever you can but that don’t make the way things work divine, it just gives the way things work a new name.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
the how and the why are the same thing, the matter works the way it works because that’s how it works.
This is an interesting position for someone taking a skeptical view of things to take, because it is a completely untestable theory for which there is no evidence.
Because, remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Occam’s razor, it must be remembered, is not a physical law of the universe. It’s a useful analytic tool.
I certainly have no problem with people taking a completely agnostic view to questions of the meaning of the universe. What I do have a problem with (and no, in case you’re wondering, I’m not a christian) is people claiming that there is no meaning to existence, and that science somehow backs up that belief.
It doesn’t. It is, at the current moment, silent on those questions.
This is an interesting position for someone taking a skeptical view of things to take, because it is a completely untestable theory for which there is no evidence.
there is evidence, we only see the tip but we see how things work and that how they work is why they work but if you take it step by step there’s no reason to doubt you couldn’t understand it givin enough time.
I’m not sure what you mean about there being no meaning to the universe as the meaning is the being and the being is the meaning. People like to define things but the definition is only our words, the physics we don’t control no matter what we call them so the meaning of the universe is for the physics to decide.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
it step by step there’s no reason to doubt you couldn’t understand it givin enough time.
Sure there is. A system, by definition, can’t understand itself because in order to understand itself it’d have to be bigger than itself. That is to say, understanding something requires being able to observe the whole of it, which requires standing outside of it in some way.
A system, by definition, can’t understand itself because in order to understand itself it’d have to be bigger than itself. That is to say, understanding something requires being able to observe the whole of it, which requires standing outside of it
it’s just definition, we could understand the part we’re talking about if we had time and tools , where we’re standing at the time is just the current viewpoint of the ever expanding question.The more we learn the bigger the circle included in our knowledge but the mechanics remain the same.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
Well, there’s an underlying assumption you’re making.
You’re assuming that reality can be understood as the sum of its parts: that if you understand this part first, and then that part, and then that part … and you get every part, you understand the whole thing.
Except that – and speaking from a purely scientific point of view – that’s clearly not the case. You look at stuff like the implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and other issues related to the collapse of quantum wave states, and it becomes clear that there are lots of examples in the known universe where you can’t separate “this” from “that” and understand them discretely.
Furthermore, even if the amount there is to know is finite (which is an assumption lacking in evidence) and our understanding will grow forever (also an assumption lacking in evidence) you can’t conclude that our understanding will eventually cover everything. Our understanding might come asymptotically close to reaching everything and never get there.
even if the amount there is to know is finite (which is an assumption lacking in evidence) and our understanding will grow forever (also an assumption lacking in evidence) you can’t conclude that our understanding will eventually cover everything
the amount to know has to be infinite because there can be no end to “everything”
If we ever find the end of “something” beyond it is “something else” which might look like nothing but even nothing is something.
Our state of the art of knowledge is constantly changing and religions need to change with it or face irrelevancy, keeping in mind that a human lifetime is a very short tick in history.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Wow! "Bimbo Coles" says the vast majority of "ethnic" Christians are the poor; could that be that the vast majority of the people are poorer? Could there be a greater proportion of the rich who are Christians?
I remember while doing grad work at a university, in NYC, a couple of us had formed a group that would lock away at house on an island once a month, and consider a topic (kinda of a pseudo-intelligentsia; I was the dumbest person there). The discussion was non-stop, beginning Friday evenings, and ending only upon Sunday’s return. You fell asleep, ate, etc., but two, or, more people, continued the discussion at all times through the weekend. One weekend, the topic was “Christianity and the Existence of the Christian God.” I remember falling asleep on Saturday night (literally exhausted from the mental gymnastics that the topic demanded of any pseudo-intellectual). I woke up, sometime Sunday, after midnight, having had a revelation! " Eureka! I have solved it", I excitedly proclaimed, eyes beaming! My compadres gathered around, “What is the answer, Dino?” they asked.
“Well, " I said, “it is really simple. I chose to make the supreme sacrifice that any intellectual can make. I choose to believe. End of conflict. Faith begins. QED”. There was no argument…..
There was no argument…..
they were probably just contemplating how to get your ass on the next ferry off the island?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 29, 2012 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
agreed
where there is faith, there is no proof;
where there is proof, there is no need for faith
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 30, 2012 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
you ignore every other point, then say something that is not even relevant to the conversation. mother nature winning over me has nothing do to with the Warriors
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
mother nature winning over me has nothing do to with the Warriors
yes it does. Physics applies to even those who fail to recognize it.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
then mother nature also wins over the Warriors
Lakers Clippers Kings and everyone else
not seeing how it applies? the only thing that will improve the Warriors circumstances is good basketball management, good basketball coaching, and good basketball execution.
http://nbawarriors.wordpress.com/
not seeing how it applies?
take a good look at a basketball court and note where the hoops are.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 26, 2012 10:58 PM PST up reply actions
Cool.
I’m glad that makes you happy.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 26, 2012 11:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ha, well then I don’t know what to say to you. A little dose of humility now and then does us all a little good…
by Missing Barry on Jan 26, 2012 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
JACKSON MORPHING 2 SINGLETARY
kenny sees it little more day x day
mark jackson morphing in2 mike singletary
now coach hasnt drop his pants yet 2 make some God knows point— but there is plenty of simularities popping up all over
the jebus stuff
the bravura
time 2 watch the film????
ANY QUESTIONS???
I guess that’s what happens when you think you can sum up a complex human being you don’t even know in a few words…
by Missing Barry on Jan 27, 2012 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
really it was a reference to him being in a comedy movie in the 90s… you are the ones who took the ball and ran with it in the wrong direction.
really it was a reference to him being in a comedy movie in the 90s…
and now he’s playin coach in a comedy sports show?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
Ha, you’re clearly responding to the wrong person.
by Missing Barry on Jan 27, 2012 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
For the record, I have no problem with Mark Jackson being religious.
He’s free to do what he wants. He’s a good man, it seems.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 10:07 AM PST reply actions
+1
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 27, 2012 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Nope.
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 27, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
this religious theological conversation?
you got anything useful to add to the discussion?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
I say live and let live.
that’s pretty useful
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 27, 2012 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
I was trying to be funny talking about MJ being in a 1996 Whoopi Goldberg movie...
how the FUCK did you all turn this into a heated religious debate?
+1
Harbaugh -- "We're not into answering questions"
by Critical Roach on Jan 27, 2012 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
My apologies
I may have responded and thus sparked it, but I just have a problem when people berate my faith with offhand comments like Skeptic’s or Bimbo Coles’, as if I’m somehow subhuman or less intelligent they are. They may make a joke of it, but I’m not laughing.
For ender
I don’t like the video title for this wonderfully put group of words from Sam Harris that gets to what you guys were debating above, think it’s too mean spirited. But ignoring whoever titled this video, i hope this gives you some pause for thought.
(And try to understand that the reason you and most believe is due to the deep human need for putting a subconscious spin to things that makes things easier, more hopeful, less scary. And that makes complete sense, you can see that we’d do that, right? We know this, brain science is getting close to showing how it literally happens in the brain, i’m not trying to be mean, or cold, but it’s just overwhelmingly likely (and gives those arguing against god a legit point, why wouldn’t we just believe too, after all, it’s nicer to look at things the god way…why would i, a nice guy, be doing all this? Certainly not to lash out at you and other believers, just to have fun or something. There is simply no evidence for and overwhelming evidence, not 100% so this charade continues, but tons of evidence against. Problem is, without 100% evidence folks just keep the discussion in a circular holding pattern of illogic and delusion….
Life is tough, scary, we didn’t, still don’t know why things happen. But we do, constantly, learn new things, and each one we learn shows, once again, that it wasn’t god like we thought for all that time, but something we now can see and understand. Think of all the blasphemous things the Vatican has first shunned then begrudgingly had to agree to the truth of. All the things we can’t see, or use to disprove god, doesn’t mean that there is a god. The burden of proof IS on you, and even religious scholars admit that much.)
If what major religion you believe in depends on where in the world you were born (pretty random, hmm, fishy…right?…fishy, right?)…and every major religion says it is the only true one, which they all do….right?…then BY DEFINITION all but one religion is wrong.
And really, if this is the case, and it is, then how likely is it that even one of them is “right?” Doesn’t it clearly expose the whole concept of god as man made? If not, how not? All over the world folks are rightfully afraid of life, afraid of dying. And why not? It’s not easy for any of us. So, we invented god.
The prospect of there being no beginning, no end, no reason for it all, no god, no heaven, no hell, just nature which has always been and always will be…is tough for so many BECAUSE you’ve been filled with there being more. It gets easy once you lose the expectations in the first place, and you don’t get less ethical, you care more for your fellow man. You see all of us going through this tough life with no assurances, only each other.
I empathize with many who’ve suffered in this life, and can see why those people would cling onto something that gave hope. I think slavery caused the phenomenon today that sees an overwhelming % of black americans be christians (the very religion of the slaveholders and slave runners that used the bible to legitimize slavery and feel superior in the first place, terribly ironic.)
And of course once you’re taught something at a very young age it’s tough to lose, especially when all of your life, family and world sees it as so integral.
Anyway, again, i don’t like the title of this, too mean spirited, but Sam Harris is a nice man who cares for and loves his family, wants what is good for as many fellow humans as possible. He has no reason to do all of what he does just to piss off religious folks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9GZOrxypTc&feature=related
It’s not about being intolerant, it’s about how batshit crazy holding onto stone age “wisdom” is and how it’s ruining our world while we somehow grasp onto it even more.
Can Mark Jackson be a good head coach while being so openly and deeply religious? Of course. But, is there a chance that being that way gets in the way of clear judgment of his players? Yes.
I’m giving coach a lot more time. However, i do wish he and everyone would keep their religion to themselves. It really is in bad taste, and if he and others do it out of some sense of being persecuted, or that the voice of us atheist/agnostics (i’m the former and this video does a good job of saying why) is becoming too loud and he “needs” to respond in a sense by being more openly religious, then he’s wrong. It’s called keeping church and state separate. It’s called not wearing your religion on your sleeve or mentioning it in public realms and i won’t “go there” either.
I hope folks who believe in god learn something from the video, and those who don’t enjoy and learn something more.
by supersugarCrisp on Jan 29, 2012 12:43 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
And try to understand that the reason you and most believe is due to the deep human need for putting a subconscious spin to things that makes things easier, more hopeful, less scary.
This is a great example of what one might call an assertion completely lacking in evidence. You stating this does not make it true. While it’s certainly possible that this is an explanation for belief, the possibility that this explains belief is not evidence that this explains belief. That this conclusion logically flows from your belief structures does not make it true.
We know this, brain science is getting close to showing how it literally happens in the brain
Furthermore, the fact that we can point to this set our neurons and explain how they’re connected to feelings of belief does not explain belief as a functional concept. Yes, ecstatic states and deeply meditative states are closely connected with certain functions in certain parts of the brain – but that doesn’t mean that they’re not connected to reality.
For example, we have a very good understanding of how eyesight works, from a brain-activity standpoint. But nobody would claim that because we can point to certain section of the brain and say, “Well, you see, this is a reaction to eyesight, our ability to see something shows up in these neurons here” that it then follows that “eyesight isn’t real – it’s just some random thing going on in our brain.” Right?
And yet isn’t that analogous to what you’re saying about belief. “Belief is associated with X … therefore it’s not real.”
The burden of proof IS on you, and even religious scholars admit that much.
I’m not sure this is the case, because scientists spend a tremendous amount of time trying to explain away the subjective experiences of people who’ve had experienced they don’t believe in.
But in any event, why should believers have to prove their beliefs, except insomuch as they’re asking you to change your life to agree with them? (If that’s what Ender’s doing, he’s on his own.) Since I’ve had the experiences I mentioned above I’ve had far more athiestic/skeptical people try to change my mind about what I experienced than traditional religious types. Isn’t the burden of proof on the person who says, “You should see things my way!”
Now, to be fair, a lot of religious types do that. And in those circumstances they should be asked to give tangible evidence. But I know one person, for example, who converted to Mormonism – a religion with, IMO, a particularly silly theology – beacuse he was having a hard time in his life and a friend of his said, “Have you tried praying? It works for me.” (Testable hypothesis). He did pray, and he credits it with helping him solve his problem. (Hypothesis confirmed).
In the fact of that kind of experience, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the burden of proof is on the believer.
then BY DEFINITION all but one religion is wrong.
I adressed this briefly above. But it’s worth pointing out a few things:
First of all, lots of scientists in any given field disagree about a lot of things. That means lots of scientists are wrong. The fact that some scientists are wrong (and in some cases spectacularly so) is not an argument against science. So is the fact that some religious people are wrong an argument against religion?
Do you see the double standard at work there?
Secondly, there are some who believe that many different religions are approaching the same truth from different positions, and that the disagreements stem more from human affairs than from the divine truth. Imagine playing two simultaneous, very long multi-lingual games of telephone starting from the same simple phrase. After the message is whispered ten thousand times in each game, do you think the two messages will be the same? Do you think they’ll even be that similar? How is the difference between those two messages at the end of their long games of telephone an argument against whatever is contained in the original message?
Of course, many people – particularly those in the Abrahamic religions – believe that part of their message is that all the other messages are wrong. But why should that be attributed to the “beginning” of the game of telephone, especially when it’s very easy to imagine reasons why that’s exactly the sort of thing that would be inserted somewhere in the chain?
I’ve read some Sam Harris, and he’s an interesting writer. But it’s worth pointing out how he points to a lot of aspects of eastern religions as being testable theories for how to live a happier life.
It’s not about being intolerant, it’s about how batshit crazy holding onto stone age "wisdom" is and how it’s ruining our world while we somehow grasp onto it even more.
But, of course, for everyone who believes in the literal nature of the bible because they were raised with it, there’s somebody else who’s belief comes from direct personal experience. So it’s not really relevant to talk to many modern believers with the lens of us holding on to “stone age” beliefs.
I would be at all surprised if some of the great religious texts were inspired originally by the same sort of experience I had (in fact, I see some evidence for it in various religious writings). THe fact that the texts what we have are flawed, human creations in no way dismisses the validity of the experience which may have inspired them.
But, is there a chance that being that way gets in the way of clear judgment of his players? Yes.
Sure. It’s also possible that his faith helps him see players in a light that helps him connect with their best selves as basketball players. We all have biases in our evaluation of players, and there are hundreds of areas where we could imagine a coach might have problems. Why single out that particular one?
After all, it’s not hard to find examples of people who will say that their religion helps them see the good in people who have made mistakes, or for whom religion helps provide inner peace which allows them to focus their conscious mind on the problems at hand more directly.
I hope folks who believe in god learn something from the video
Most of the video is only relevant to somebody who’s intersting in this debate as it relates to Christianity. Most of it flat-out doesn’t apply to someone who’s had the experiences I’ve had.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 29, 2012 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Clarifcation
But in any event, why should believers have to prove their beliefs, except insomuch as they’re asking you to change your life to agree with them? (If that’s what Ender’s doing, he’s on his own.)
Sorry for any confusion, I am not trying to convert anyone here. If that happens because of anything I say, well, sorry, I guess? As I said earlier, I’m trying to defend my beliefs and take exception to people calling them “batshit crazy.”
I would be at all surprised if some of the great religious texts were inspired originally by the same sort of experience I had
So is that why would you assume that your experience was “religious” as opposed to just structural? Isn’t it more likely a product of the mind than a product of some far away god? A "divine’ feeling is a pretty common occurrence for most of us but we don’t make a religion out of it.There is no church of banging your head on the kitchen cabinet doors or the god of the 105 degree fever. We have all kinds of thoughts including feelings cause they have proved to be useful in propagation of the species. Some accept them and move on while others need to create a system to give them a more structured frame of reference.
Religions are “real” in that they exist in people’s minds but they are not the product of the god they are assumed to worship. Many are recent enough creations that their roots can be closely examined and found to be nothing more than mind games.Why is it that most religions say I’m the truth now give me your money when if they were really the truth they’d be able to say I’m the truth so I can afford to pay for you?
In the big picture whether one believes in a god or not don’t make much difference cause adding a god just adds an extra layer to the questions, sorta like a jesus tax. the question then becomes who created god and what lives next door to him?
Just kicking the can down the road further.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 29, 2012 7:45 PM PST reply actions
Isn’t it more likely a product of the mind than a product of some far away god?
Ultimately, I don’t care very much about the answer to that question. As far as “more likely” I don’t think anybody had any ability to say. How can we discuss the likelihood of the universe coming together in such a form as to give birth to the possibilities of life? eg, if gravity is less than .01% stronger, everything re-collapses in the big bang. What is the likelihood of gravity being exactly what it needs to be for this all to work?
That’s an unanswerable question, isn’t it? Maybe some day science will answer it for us, maybe it won’t. But you can’t talk about whether it’s more likely that my brain came up with that stuff on its own of it I was directly experiencing something outside of myself unless you can answer it.
Your question about what’s more likely is a great example of the pseudoscientific approach that skeptics often bring into this sort of discussion. We have no basis for evaluating the relative odds of us existing by pure random chance and of being a product of source/god/the self-awareness the matter of creation – so let’s not pretend that we can make that sort of judgement.
Beyond that, at a certain point, it doesn’t matter. Whether the things I experienced were directly related to the divine or just a glitch in a materialist-reductionist brain, the wisdom I came out of the experience with has led directly to me living a happier, more fulfilling life. It’s helped me understand the people around me, my relationships, and myself. I can’t see a single negative effect that’s come out of it. (This may surprise GSOMers, but I get into far fewer dumb internet arguments since it happened, too). So, ultimately, who cares?
It felt, to me, like the direct experience of the divine. THe most useful way for me to treat it is as an experience of such.
Religions are "real" in that they exist in people’s minds but they are not the product of the god they are assumed to worship.
Well, I have two responses to this.
The first is point out that you are positing something without evidence and presenting it as fact. You can not merely restate your hypothesis as a supporting argument for your hypothesis.
The second is perhaps best summed up by quoting a fictional character. “Well of course it’s happening in your head, but why should that mean that it’s not real?” Reality is a much more tenuous concept than most of us like to admit. The solidity of the keyboard on which I’m typing this – it’s more than 99.99% nothing. As are my fingers – and yet they resist each other. Many things in this universe exist or don’t exist depending on whether or not we’re looking at them, and their form changes retroactively based on whether or not we look at them in the future.
If you really start to dig down into the science (no religion required) it becomes a lot harder to make definitive statements about what “real” is.
by Ronaldinho on Jan 29, 2012 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Did you recently have this “revelation” ? And do you align yourself with any sort of religion?
Gambino is a mastermind...
by GovernorStephCurry on Jan 29, 2012 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
It wasn't a single event. But I would suppose one could say that the tipping point happened early last summer.
And no, I don’t particularly align myself with any specific named religion. It’s more a deep spiritualism to me than anything typically associated with the word “religion.”
I would suppose one could say that the tipping point happened early last summer.
You liked the Klay Thompson pick that much, huh? ;-)
There will be no extra point!
by Sleepy Freud on Jan 31, 2012 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
It felt, to me, like the direct experience of the divine.
I’m sure it did and it is now your private definition of devine but no religion was necessary for you to feel it. you did it all by yourself( or with chemical help maybe)but anyway it’s your divine not god’s. Sure that’s just my opinion but I see more evidence of that than of some random god among the many possibilities singling you out for a driveby? I mean if it happened then you gotta decide if it was jesus, allah, buddah, krishna, the waco guy, or maybe a lady god like aphrodite or venus? Do any of them make more sense than something your circuits did by themselves?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 29, 2012 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I fully understand why somebody who hasn’t had this sort of experience is resistant to it and in a rush to squish it down into a materialist-reductionist box.
The problem with examining the evidence is that we’re dealing with different sets of evidence. I can’t lay my evidence out on the table because it’s fundamentally experiential, and language is a poor tool for explaining that sort of thing. (eg, could you explain what an orgasm was to somebody who had never experienced one and give them the slightest hint as to what the experience actually felt like? The best you could do was prime them so that when they did have one they’d be able to say “oh – that’s what that is!”)
I mean if it happened then you gotta decide if it was jesus, allah, buddah, krishna, the waco guy, or maybe a lady god like aphrodite or venus?
Why? That strikes me as a very human-sized way of defining god. In any event, my understanding of the divine is that it is larger than any box you could think to put it in, so I’d rather not try to put it in a box.
That strikes me as a very human-sized way of defining god. In any event, my understanding of the divine is that it is larger than any box you could think to put it in
That’s just re-defining the mechanics of nature as divine then. That’s not religious that’s just feeling the awareness of the way things work. It doesn’t take a divinity to be able to feel that stuff as it’s part of the natural process of pain and reward that results from the survival of the fittest.Feelings are just another tool in the box like thumbs or gills.
I think you need to decide if you want to give religion credit for your insights as there’s a big difference in what you feel and what religions are all about. They are not satisfied with feeling the feeling they usually want to own it and bend it to fit their own agendas.
sounds like you are doing better on your own without that baggage?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 30, 2012 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
That’s just re-defining the mechanics of nature as divine then.
Not really.
Again, I totally understand where you’re coming from, because this is an attitude I used to share. All I can say is that it’s different from what you’re describing, and would totally make sense if you experienced it. Maybe it’s because I haven’t had my coffee yet, but or maybe it’s because, like I said, there are things you have to experience to understand, but I can’t really respond to this other than to say, “Yes, I understand exactly what you’re talking about … and no, it’s not what I’m talking about.”
I recognize it’s frustrating to get into this sort of discussion with someone who’s arguing from an experience he can’t share, so perhaps this is a logical endpoint to the coversation.
I think you need to decide if you want to give religion credit for your insights as there’s a big difference in what you feel and what religions are all about.
Well, this gets to the point I mentioned above where is why spiritualism is perhaps a better description of my approach than religion. I don’t feel the need to credit any organized religion, no … but this discussion, for me, started as an defense of belief not a defense of religion. I’ve been using the term religion to fit my beliefs into the conversation you’re willing to have.
How can we discuss the likelihood of the universe coming together in such a form as to give birth to the possibilities of life? eg, if gravity is less than .01% stronger, everything re-collapses in the big bang.
the point is it don’t matter if everything re-collapsed into the big bang, it happens the way it happens cause that’s the way stuff works. Only the human viewpoint cares if the universe worked out this way, nature don’t care cause by definition whatever happens is correct for nature. Somewhere along the endless ticker tape of time there’s a small segment with our name on it and it don’t matter if our segment is bracketed by a god or not as it’s all just meaningless semantics to the rolling tape.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 30, 2012 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
the point is it don’t matter if everything re-collapsed into the big bang, it happens the way it happens cause that’s the way stuff works.
This is all fine and dandy, but allow me to point out that you were the one who brought probabilities into it. The above statement is incompatible with talking about what’s more likely than what.
It is, in fact, a remarkable statement of faith. “It happens the way it happens because that’s the way stuff works,” is an untestable hypothesis. It is faith in a materialist-reductionist worldview, but it is faith nonetheless.
probabilities
they are only guidelines derived from what we know , they are not the actual happenings. probabilities say the dubs can’t beat the heat or that OJ was guilty but the happenings don’t agree.
We are all dependent on our backgrounds when it comes to our view of the probabilities, based on what I can see my estimate of the probability any of the worlds religions being correct is very very small. Smaller even than the odds of Dre turning into a 100% freethrow shooter.
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 30, 2012 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
The difference is -
- probabilities come from the examination of past and/or similar events. We look at all the past FT shooters, and we can’t find somebody who was as bad as Andris who became good. Therefore, we conclude that it’s rare/unlikely.
But when talking about reality and existence, we only have one observation. If you saw only one free throw in your life, every, you might conclude (if Steph shot it) that “Free throws are automatic. THey always go in.” After all, that’s all you’ve ever seen. Or you might conclude (if you say Beans shoot it) “Free Throws are the hardest shot in basketball.”
Or you might recognize that you only had a single observation, and therefore you were ill-equiped to evaluate how likely a FT is to go in.
when talking about reality and existence, we only have one observation.
we have only one existence but i’d say we have multiple observations of how it works, everything we see and do shows us the workings in action, we just gotta arrange them into likely patterns then decide what they mean.
I’d be interested in hearing from computer experts on how long it will be before we could theoretically have computers powerful enough to solve the mystery for us?
Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jan 30, 2012 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
reality and God are not mutually exclusive
it happens the way it happens cause that’s the way stuff works.
the debate is just about why stuff works the way it works. “God” could just be the term we use to describe whatever this universal driver is
"I am very worried about the Warriors"
-brutusbrutus
by Duby Dub Dubs on Jan 30, 2012 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
Amen, my brothers. Can we now just end this enlightened discourse?
by dinohealth on Jan 29, 2012 11:37 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Probably a good idea.
Though I really am appreciating Ronaldinho’s comments. He’s been far more insightful to the discussion than anything I’ve said.
Yes, I found his contributions to the discussion revealing and engaging. It can be described as a treatise on the positiveness of spiritualism. Clearly it reflects a great deal of introspection and solid command of logic.
I have not engaged in these intellectual gymnastics with non-believers since I made the decision to embrace faith many, many years ago. Knowing that I am not compelled to prove the existince of God, has provided a very peaceful existence with all around me, and, my God (pertaining to theological discussions, persuasions, etc)! I engage with my full intellectual capacity on all other subjects that relate to my physical existence on this planet. Nonetheless, I can appreciate Ronaldinho’s revelations, because to some degree, they are similar to experiences I had, many, many years ago, when I chose the Christian Faith as the spiritual foundation for my being.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
