Webb Simpson - does he have a mind of his own?

[iacas]

Hi.

Just a few comments. FWIW I consider myself "spiritual" but not necessarily "religious." I think Buddhists are technically atheists as they don't really believe in gods per se, and if I was to align most with any "religious-like entity" it would be Buddhism. This post on my personal blog from 2009 is still fairly representative.

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

Over under on how many posts get through before the lock gets thrown down on this one? I'm going to set it at 65.

Originally Posted by JetFan1983

Lock please.

Why?

I may move this to the Grill Room at some point (perhaps soon), but the discussion thus far seems pretty even tempered and so on. The fact of the matter is that not everyone thinks alike and this topic relates to golf. I started a forum because I like talking about things with other people. If everyone agreed all the time, or didn't talk about the things they didn't agree upon, there'd be no forum.

So long as people can remain civil and even moderately respectful, this thread will remain open, just like any other.

Originally Posted by Kaivai

if  i ever find out that god has anything to do with sporting events i am going to be pissed

That one made me chuckle. :-) Talk about conspiracy theories. God rooting for certain people would be the ultimate conspiracy theory!

To the point at hand, I personally don't care what a person does behind closed doors or in the privacy of their homes, churches, etc. I don't particularly like having it put in front of me and being subjected to it when I'm just trying to watch golf, but in the grand scheme of things, there are far, far, FAR more important things to worry about than Webb Simpson's golf bag, his victory speech, or what he does or believes in his free time.

Plus, who watches victory speeches anyway?

I'll close with this video (from my blog post):

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by inthehole

When a few billion people (they see as non-thinking lemmings) disagree, logic would dictate they wouldn't take such a hard line stance ...

Just because a billion people believe in something, doesn't mean it is true. I think Robert Pirsig had it right, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

[inthehole]

Quote:

Just because a billion people believe in something, doesn't mean it is true. I think Robert Pirsig had it right, "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

yet another religion slam, nice ...  my point was simply when so many believe wholeheartedly in something, it doesn't make logical sense to completely discount it & be so absolutely sure that it's false.    I know it's hip to be anti-religion today, but do you at least understand my point ?

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by inthehole

Quote:

yet another religion slam, nice ...  my point was simply when so many believe wholeheartedly in something, it doesn't make logical sense to completely discount it & be so absolutely sure that it's false.    I know it's hip to be anti-religion today, but do you at least understand my point ?

I don't understand your point. Until quite recently, and to use a golf example, many, many people believed the ball flight laws were the opposite of what they are. Just because the large majority of people believed in something didn't make it right.

I freely admit to being in the anti-religion camp. In fact, I am a staunch follower of Richard Dawkins. However, so as not to be a hypocrite I will leave it there and not proceed to ram my beliefs down people's throats.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I don't understand your point. Until quite recently, and to use a golf example, many, many people believed the ball flight laws were the opposite of what they are. Just because the large majority of people believed in something didn't make it right.

I freely admit to being in the anti-religion camp. In fact, I am a staunch follower of Richard Dawkins. However, so as not to be a hypocrite I will leave it there and not proceed to ram my beliefs down people's throats.

But, based on the logic of Shorty's opening post, and the fact that you have responded and made your beliefs (or un-beliefs as it were) known, haven't you rammed your beliefs down our throats? If the answer is no,  then based on this and your last post, I guess I am supposed to understand that it's perfectly ok for you or anyone else to spout all they want about how religion, or faith in God is absolutely false, silly, stupid, or whatever else you want to call it but somehow it's not ok for people of faith to say they believe in a god?

I don't think that someone thanking God, or saying they believe in a God is ramming their beliefs down anyone's throat. I mean really, how is Webb Simpson say HE thanks HIS Lord and Savior, ramming religion down your throat? Why don't you just ignore it? Does everything you hear that you don't agree with mean that person is trying to ram it down your throat? Really? Why do you, as an unbeliever care what Webb Simpson believes in?

It always amuses me that atheists or others who claim not to believe in a God sit there and call religious people intolerant (or other names) while being completely intolerant themselves. Are people on either side of this debate perfect? Of course not. Are there extremists on all sides? Again, of course. I just can't understand why Webb Simpson choosing to believe in God and publicly thanking him after a win hurts anyone.

[JetFan1983]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Why?

Because I disagree that this has anything to do with Tour Talk or even golf. Everyone is pretty much using Webb Simpson as a macguffin to have the old and tired "religion vs. atheism" debate. IMO not a single person has been swayed either way by an internet discussion on this topic. It's a bunch of people chasing their tails and banging their keyboards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I may move this to the Grill Room at some point (perhaps soon), but the discussion thus far seems pretty even tempered and so on.

Yes, please do. And it has so far, I guess. I'm predicting that it won't though. Am I the only one who remembers the Christian Thread ? I've heard this song too many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

The fact of the matter is that not everyone thinks alike and this topic relates to golf.

I don't really think it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I started a forum because I like talking about things with other people. If everyone agreed all the time, or didn't talk about the things they didn't agree upon, there'd be no forum.

When did I ever say everyone should agree all the time? I just think this topic sucks and I'm expressing that feeling here. It's a waste of time and I'm just trying to save everyone the carpel tunnel surgery that may ensue

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Plus, who watches victory speeches anyway?

I do actually. I think it's one of the best parts of the broadcast. It's an incredible moment for anyone to win a golf event. And I like to see them in that moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

So long as people can remain civil and even moderately respectful, this thread will remain open, just like any other.

Fair enough. I just don't like religion topics. My true opinion on the matter is too offensive to some people, and if anyone is likely to "lose it" on this topic, it's me. And I don't want to get banned.

I wish we could block entire threads.

Quote:

Yes, please do. And it has so far, I guess. I'm predicting that it won't though. Am I the only one who remembers the Christian Thread ? I've heard this song too many times.

And I'm more than happy to repeat ball flight laws, weight forward, handle forward, to any golfer who asks a question that requires me to repeat something we've all said before. I think that's different though as the reader is far more likely to accept and be enriched by those responses.

***

Anyway, you fellas have your fun. I'm going to go read some golf related threads now ....Actually who am I kidding, I'm going to keep coming back and reading. Hopefully I don't turn into a pillar of salt.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Dave H

But, based on the logic of Shorty's opening post, and the fact that you have responded and made your beliefs (or un-beliefs as it were) known, haven't you rammed your beliefs down our throats? If the answer is no,  then based on this and your last post, I guess I am supposed to understand that it's perfectly ok for you or anyone else to spout all they want about how religion, or faith in God is absolutely false, silly, stupid, or whatever else you want to call it but somehow it's not ok for people of faith to say they believe in a god?

I don't think that someone thanking God, or saying they believe in a God is ramming their beliefs down anyone's throat. I mean really, how is Webb Simpson say HE thanks HIS Lord and Savior, ramming religion down your throat? Why don't you just ignore it? Does everything you hear that you don't agree with mean that person is trying to ram it down your throat? Really? Why do you, as an unbeliever care what Webb Simpson believes in?

It always amuses me that atheists or others who claim not to believe in a God sit there and call religious people intolerant (or other names) while being completely intolerant themselves. Are people on either side of this debate perfect? Of course not. Are there extremists on all sides? Again, of course. I just can't understand why Webb Simpson choosing to believe in God and publicly thanking him after a win hurts anyone.

I responded to one part of the thread, not the whole thread. I suggest you go back and read the thread to understand why I have posted. You have gone off on a tangent which has nothing to do with why I posted here. I appreciate you not putting words in my mouth as you seem to have mistaken me with the OP. For what it is worth, I couldn't give a frog's fat arse what Simpson thinks.

You also have a very strange definition of ramming beliefs down people's throats. All I said was I am not religious and left it there. If you want me to ram my beliefs down your throat, I'll be more than happy to send you a 100,000 word PM.

[Shorty]

OK - here's another direction.......

Why Does Webb Simpson have "Titus 3:3-7" embroidered on the back of his cap. It is not for him to see. It's not on a little card he keeps in his pocket and looks at to draw inspiration.

For whose benefit is it?  Surely it's the people who see it.

Now......I wouldn't call that "ramming it down someone's throat" (perhaps a variation on that)  but he really does seem to have a need for everyone else to think something about "who he is".

And what pretentious crap it is...

Titus 3:3-7

New International Version (NIV)

³ At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. ⁴ But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, ⁵ he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, ⁶ whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, ⁷ so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

• =
  =
• >
• >>

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

You clearly have a point of view, but I doubt that any sort of "debate" would be worthwhile. So long as you view with contempt and ridicule anyone who has a differing viewpoint from you, further discussion is futile.

That's a cop out. And what you're saying isn't true.

It's not a question of being contemptuous of or ridiculing a different point of view. I'm not talking about car brands or football teams or golf clubs or golf balls or favourite holiday destinations.

You would be contemptuous of a person who said that elephants have bicycles inside them. You wouldn't say that that was an "opinion" and that the believer of such nonsense should be respected.  That is a better analogy than saying there are two sides of the fence, and neither can be proven, therefore debate is futile.

I'm talking about someone who enthusiastically talks about something which is a complete invention as if it is real. There has never been a shred of evidence to even sugeest the possibility of the existence of a higher power. Of course people who beieve in God should be ridiculed, because they are proving themselves to be ignorant.  Religion requires believers to have "faith" - to essentially believe in something when there is no reason to. And to do this,it requires an immense amount of gullibiity and foolishness.  And yes----it's possible to be elected president and hit a golf ball well whilst maintaining a belief in something totally fictitious.  If it was factual and could be demonstrated, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be part of everyday knowledge.

You have to question someone who believes in something that is false. You can't have a "point of view" about something and present no evidence to support it other than to say - "Oh, millions of people are like me, we can't all be wrong, and this religion has existed for two thousand years."

The fact that there are many religions and they are regional, in a global sense, would be proof eough for a five year old to understand that it's all fantasy rooted in a much simpler world where most people couldn't read or write, or imagine a world five miles from where they were born.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be contemptuous of that sort of thinking in the current age, in the same way that I am contemptuous of people who think women shouldn't work or that sisters who are raped should have acid thrown in their faces and six year olds should be working in coal mines.  Doesn't make me an angry and disagreeable person.

What's that joke about the Hindu? (I think it was a Hindu)

When he was explaining that the world sat on an elephant which was standing on a tortoise, when asked what the tortoise was standing on, the response was "Suppose we change the subject".

That's what Christians in this debate do, but they pretend that they're being all tolerant, agreeable and nice, but really, like the Hindu, they realise that their dogma trips them up when a question that a reasonably intelliget four year old would ask. Saves the embarrassment.

[newtogolf]

Shorty you come off as ignorant as those you ridicule for believing in a higher power when you write these things you do.  As a former catholic turned agnostic / buddhist I questioned much of the same as you.  Science debunked much of what was written in the bible but even science can't prove to my satisfaction how the first living cell came to be.  It could be from a higher being or lifeform from another planet, the fact is we don't know for certain.

It's for that reason I consider myself agnostic and not an atheist.  If people find comfort or inner strength from believing in their god who are you to tell them they are fools.  You seem quite bothered by a persons faith and willingness to accept the existence of a god in the absence of scientific fact.  Let's also remember that science isn't always right, as it's limited by the intelligence, tools and knowledge of the people that currently practice it.  There was a time that people thought the earth was the center of the universe those that disagreed were called fools too.

Originally Posted by Shorty

I'm talking about someone who enthusiastically talks about something which is a complete invention as if it is real. There has never been a shred of evidence to even sugeest the possibility of the existence of a higher power. Of course people who beieve in God should be ridiculed, because they are proving themselves to be ignorant.  Religion requires believers to have "faith" - to essentially believe in something when there is no reason to. And to do this,it requires an immense amount of gullibiity and foolishness.  And yes----it's possible to be elected president and hit a golf ball well whilst maintaining a belief in something totally fictitious.  If it was factual and could be demonstrated, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be part of everyday knowledge.

You have to question someone who believes in something that is false. You can't have a "point of view" about something and present no evidence to support it other than to say - "Oh, millions of people are like me, we can't all be wrong, and this religion has existed for two thousand years."

The fact that there are many religions and they are regional, in a global sense, would be proof eough for a five year old to understand that it's all fantasy rooted in a much simpler world where most people couldn't read or write, or imagine a world five miles from where they were born.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Shorty

You would be contemptuous of a person who said that elephants have bicycles inside them. You wouldn't say that that was an "opinion" and that the believer of such nonsense should be respected.  That is a better analogy than saying there are two sides of the fence, and neither can be proven, therefore debate is futile....

I think you're confused Shorty. It can be easily proven that elephants do not have bicycles inside them. It cannot be proven that God does not exist, and you are equating that "lack of proof of existence" with "proof of non-existence". That's a logical fallacy.

In the absence of said proof of non-existence, Christians choose to believe what they do based on a combination of historical evidence, personal experience, and faith. If somehow the non-existence of God could be scientifically proven and they still continued to believe, then - although it's a bit rude and boorish -  you'd be correct to call them fools. Until that day though, your attack on Christians is simply rude.and boorish.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Shorty

That's a cop out. And what you're saying isn't true.

It's not a question of being contemptuous of or ridiculing a different point of view. I'm not talking about car brands or football teams or golf clubs or golf balls or favourite holiday destinations.

You would be contemptuous of a person who said that elephants have bicycles inside them. You wouldn't say that that was an "opinion" and that the believer of such nonsense should be respected.  That is a better analogy than saying there are two sides of the fence, and neither can be proven, therefore debate is futile.

I'm talking about someone who enthusiastically talks about something which is a complete invention as if it is real. There has never been a shred of evidence to even sugeest the possibility of the existence of a higher power. Of course people who beieve in God should be ridiculed, because they are proving themselves to be ignorant.  Religion requires believers to have "faith" - to essentially believe in something when there is no reason to. And to do this,it requires an immense amount of gullibiity and foolishness.  And yes----it's possible to be elected president and hit a golf ball well whilst maintaining a belief in something totally fictitious.  If it was factual and could be demonstrated, it wouldn't be a religion, it would be part of everyday knowledge.

You have to question someone who believes in something that is false. You can't have a "point of view" about something and present no evidence to support it other than to say - "Oh, millions of people are like me, we can't all be wrong, and this religion has existed for two thousand years."

The fact that there are many religions and they are regional, in a global sense, would be proof eough for a five year old to understand that it's all fantasy rooted in a much simpler world where most people couldn't read or write, or imagine a world five miles from where they were born.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be contemptuous of that sort of thinking in the current age, in the same way that I am contemptuous of people who think women shouldn't work or that sisters who are raped should have acid thrown in their faces and six year olds should be working in coal mines.  Doesn't make me an angry and disagreeable person.

What's that joke about the Hindu? (I think it was a Hindu)

When he was explaining that the world sat on an elephant which was standing on a tortoise, when asked what the tortoise was standing on, the response was "Suppose we change the subject".

That's what Christians in this debate do, but they pretend that they're being all tolerant, agreeable and nice, but really, like the Hindu, they realise that their dogma trips them up when a question that a reasonably intelliget four year old would ask. Saves the embarrassment.

How convenient for you to know everything there is to know, to the extent that anyone who doesn't see things your way is to be ridiculed. That's quite an easy way to look at the world, where things are either black or white. Makes everything fit into your neat little atheist box.

The longer I live and observe the world, the more I see things are hardly ever black or white.  And the more convinced I am that we are not here as just some random, cosmic happenstance in a crap-shoot of an universe. If you view your life as totally meaningless, I feel sorry for your sad existence.  It can't be all that enjoyable.

[mck]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be contemptuous of that sort of thinking in the current age, in the same way that I am contemptuous of people who think women shouldn't work or that sisters who are raped should have acid thrown in their faces and six year olds should be working in coal mines.  Doesn't make me an angry and disagreeable person.

Now given you atheism, how can you make a statement that rape victims having acid thrown on their face is bad?  What basis do you have for these ethical statements?  Aren't we all just random chemicals churning away.  How would throwing acid in someones face be any different  than say coughing?  Just chemicals doing their thing right?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

And the more convinced I am that we are not here as just some random, cosmic happenstance in a crap-shoot of an universe. If you view your life as totally meaningless, I feel sorry for your sad existence.  It can't be all that enjoyable for you.

I rest my case. You didn't even read my post.

This is the sort of platitudinous claptrap that perpetuates ignorance and stupidity.

A life is not meaningless if one doesn't believe in fairytales.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by mck

Now given you atheism, how can you make a statement that rape victims having acid thrown on their face is bad?  What basis do you have for these ethical statements?  Aren't we all just random chemicals churning away.  How would throwing acid in someones face be any different  than say coughing?  Just chemicals doing their thing right?

FFS.

Is compassion the prerogative of those who believe in God?

If you don't, dows that mean that you can't have any ethical or moral standpoints?

Not according to you, apparently.

Notice how it's actually the "Christians" who become aggressive and surly?  Funny that.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I rest my case.

This is the sort of platitudinous claptrap that perpetuates ignorance and stupidity.

A life is not meaningless if one doesn't believe in fairytales.

What are you even talking about?  Platitudinous claptrap?!?  Just slowly step away from your thesaurus. Your rants are getting incomprehensible.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I rest my case.

This is the sort of platitudinous claptrap that perpetuates ignorance and stupidity.

A life is not meaningless if one doesn't believe in fairytales.

You are wasting your time Shorty. I hear this sort of BS ("we are not here as just some random, cosmic happenstance in a crap-shoot of an universe") from every religious person I speak to when they try to "show me the treasure". It's spoon-fed to them every Sunday morning at church where they go to have the Bible explained to them. Most of the services are centered around how to convince atheists there is a God, so it is no wonder my second favourite ("random chemicals") has followed quickly on the heels of my favourite.

[iacas]

Okay, things are trending towards the "not too cool" so everyone is advised to step back and take a deep breath before continuing. Thank you.