mck

I don't watch either tour--but if they were to merge--I might check it out

Don't know if this has been posted before, but one of my favorite Elkington stories.... With Colin Montgomerie in the country for the Johnnie Walker Classic it seems as good a time as any to relay this fine story Steve Elkington told Golf Digest a few years ago: "That would be the 1995 World Match Play at Wentworth. I had beaten him in a playoff for the PGA Championship at Riviera a couple months earlier, so when we got paired in the second round, it was being built up over there as a rematch, a chance for him to gain revenge. Anyway, we're having lunch in the clubhouse there, which is a castle. Lisa and I are eating a little sandwich off in the corner. Monty has maybe 25 people at his table, royalty and all, with a fabulous buffet. Part of the spread is this huge custard castle, a replica of the one we're eating in. So Monty gets up and goes toward the custard, and he wiped out the whole west side of the clubhouse, an entire custard wing including maybe part of the locker room. I think to myself, Isn't that nice of Monty, scooping up all that custard for all those people at his table to share? Well, damned if he doesn't sit down and eat the whole thing himself. I turned to Lisa and said, "There ain't a man alive who can eat that much custard and beat me." I won, 2 and 1."

Good call. Elk's perfect for tv--but any network the gives Eric Kuselias four hours a day is not exactly great a finding talent

You oughta check out religious tv sometime. If you send them a $1,000 "seed" they promise God will send you back that and more. It's unreal, it should be illegal, but it is funny to watch

Christianity is not going to say Bob is a great guy. He's fallen short of God's standard and is a sinner needing forgiveness...I'm sure you've heard the rest. Peter looks pretty bad compared to Bob but what if we find someone who has killed more,raped more ect.. Can't they be the standard of what is considered a bad person? In that case Peter can be one of the good guys I guess. I think that would be the slippery slope of moral relativism which I beleive atheism is stuck with. Is that blog post on this site?

I think terms like “right and wrong” and “the humane thing to do” are being borrowed from theistic presuppositions. Atheism cannot account for an objective—fixed standard of right and wrong—its all basically opinion and relative. That’s not saying atheists aren’t good people—they are-its just saying their morality is not supported by their atheism. Let’s say for example you’re speaking to a Hitler type person who is on their deathbed. What could an atheist say to him at that point? Why was the way he lived his life wrong? He got away with it. He and the most righteous person that ever existed are both heading into the same eternal nothingness. There’s no accountability, no justice awaiting them—it’s all nothing. So everything does reduce down to meaningless groups of chemicals. Atheists may not like hearing that, but there’s no way around it. It’s all matter in motion; and how you base a meaningful morality on that is beyond me. Nothing would be more frightening than an atheist that lived out the logical consequences to their own beliefs. Thankfully they don’t. These discussions can get nasty and from my experience it’s usually the religious side that goes overboard. Most non-religious people seem to have your attitude as opposed to a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist (if those really exist). And to be fair to shorty, he’s aggressive and condescending on every topic he posts on, so anything he said in this thread shouldn’t be a surprise.

Well, to borrow your own worldview for a moment, my answer to everything you’ve said on this thread is SO WHAT! None of this means anything, you, me, web simpson, and even deer hunters across the world, we’re all just rearranging the seats on the titanic.

could you give an example of a moral belief based on science? I'm not sure I get what you mean

To your first question my answer would be absolutey not--I never said that I'm not saying you can't have ethical standpoints--I'm asking how are those consistent with your worldview. You started the thread I thought maybe you had some positive statement about what you believe and why. It was just a question-, not meant to be "aggressive and surly" ---in the future I'll try to be more careful and follow your example of posting etiquette

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?

"character, integrity, and sportsmanship" are also part of what the voters are asked to consider---so it's not just playing record, even if it should be

A handshake on 1 and 18 is all you would see.

Signing Ochocinco is a move I have alot more confidence in--- but I like what there doing this year

80% in the fairway? You sure it was the Canadian Open you went to?

I know what your saying--but name one tournament that Daly's won that didn't shock everybody

I just don't think there are only a select few in the world who could be a good caddie. The skills needed are not that hard to come by which should be reflected in what they earn. I don't know what a caddie should earn--but if I was to guess I'd say all expenses paid and 40,000 a year. The idea of 10% of a players winnings just sounds crazy to me.

which just proves how overpaid--way overpaid some of these caddies are.

How does the all orange help his wallet? Is OSU paying him? I've never heard of a school doing that but I've also never seen anyone that obsessed with their school.

problem I have with everyone's top three is if you give Hogan and Woods the longevity that Nicklaus had I think they both pass his record. In Hogan's case you have to wonder what he would have done if he played in four majors a year. I agree those guys are the top three, but the order is debatable.

look at it a different way. Let's say by some miracle you had the game at 50 to play out there---why would the senior tour want some unknown 50 year old taking up a spot that could go to an ex tour player? The senior tour is more about fans seeing certain players than quality of golf.

I think you always take the money. If Ty Tryon had listened to everyone and gone to college he never (as best we can tell) would have made a dime playing golf. Callaway made him a multimillionaire--- I think he made the right decision

Anyone know why they write "IDEA" on all their irons? Seems like a constant eyesore to me

I'd agree that his followers are stupid. There's alot of information out there on this guy and they chose to ignore that and give him their money--so it's their loss. But, if we are all just animals "doing our thing" why can't Harold Camping just be an animal and predicting the end of the world while accepting donations just be his thing?

The passage you cited has always been understood as a passage referring to the second coming. The rapture as an event distinct from the second coming comes from dispensationalism which, as you said, began in the early 1800’s and remains popular in some protestant circles. I don’t think it really comes down to Literal vs. symbolic but more about recognizing different genres within the Bible. For example, the book of Revelation is best considered apocalyptic literature—so to read that book as though it were prose, as the Left Behind series does, can hardly be considered a “literal interpretation”. It would be like trying to read a Ben Hogan book as though it were poetry. Camping’s teaching is so far out there it really doesn’t fit in any established theological category, he uses some biblical language, but he’s really out there on his own….counting his money I suppose.