Kaka

Discussion of footy that ISN'T centred around Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Kaka

Post by Spyman » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:28 am

Apart from being a massive God-botherer, Kaka is just about the best bloke in football, isn't he?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24117343
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

User avatar
Darlobaz79
Posts: 1168
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Darlobaz79 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:22 am

maybe the two things are related...

lo36789
Posts: 10931
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by lo36789 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:58 am

aye was pretty cruel of his god to give him the injury.

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:54 pm

Darlobaz79 wrote:maybe the two things are related...
Possibly, but you don't need god to be good.

User avatar
Darlobaz79
Posts: 1168
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Darlobaz79 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 pm

it depends upon how you judge 'good' if there is no objective standard. Your good is different to mine and vice versa

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:05 pm

Darlobaz79 wrote:it depends upon how you judge 'good' if there is no objective standard. Your good is different to mine and vice versa
Objective standard?

The UK's objective standard has been developed over centuries, and the same can be said of other societies. I find the best ones tend to be those that don't rely on religion anymore and instead on reason, logic, empathy, experience, and science; such as the UK.

You can also create your own standard using those same precepts.

Again, none of this needs a god figure. But then the god you're talking about never comes down and interacts with us to give us an objective standard (he does in the Bible, funnily enough. Where'd he go?!?) so the only source of this god is the Bible. And that is one of the worst sources you could possibly use for anything at all, including morality.

Even so, even if you ignore the horrific parts and the immoral guidance (because the Bible is full of it, as long as you don't cherry pick) then it still should be open to criticism and discussion. Morality shouldn't be commanded by some dictator figure, otherwise you're not being moral, you're just doing what you're told.

And if you cherry pick, and say you don't follow the bit that tells you to stone gay people (I could use a million other immoral examples), then not only are you more moral than your god but you've also just used your own concept of right and wrong to decide not to do something, hence you don't need this guidance at all, other than to confirm what you already thought. But then I thought this was supposed to be objective morality? Clearly not.

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Spyman » Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:51 pm

Anyway - why don't all god-bothering footballers make these sorts of gestures? Why do nonreligious footballers do copious amounts for charity?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

User avatar
Darlobaz79
Posts: 1168
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Darlobaz79 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:12 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Darlobaz79 wrote:it depends upon how you judge 'good' if there is no objective standard. Your good is different to mine and vice versa
Objective standard?

The UK's objective standard has been developed over centuries, and the same can be said of other societies. I find the best ones tend to be those that don't rely on religion anymore and instead on reason, logic, empathy, experience, and science; such as the UK.

You can also create your own standard using those same precepts.

Again, none of this needs a god figure. But then the god you're talking about never comes down and interacts with us to give us an objective standard (he does in the Bible, funnily enough. Where'd he go?!?) so the only source of this god is the Bible. And that is one of the worst sources you could possibly use for anything at all, including morality.

Even so, even if you ignore the horrific parts and the immoral guidance (because the Bible is full of it, as long as you don't cherry pick) then it still should be open to criticism and discussion. Morality shouldn't be commanded by some dictator figure, otherwise you're not being moral, you're just doing what you're told.

And if you cherry pick, and say you don't follow the bit that tells you to stone gay people (I could use a million other immoral examples), then not only are you more moral than your god but you've also just used your own concept of right and wrong to decide not to do something, hence you don't need this guidance at all, other than to confirm what you already thought. But then I thought this was supposed to be objective morality? Clearly not.
The UK's objective standard that has been developed over centuries is a Christian moral code. The fact you find the best ones, ones that don't rely on religion is subjective which proves my point as does the fact that you say you can create your own standard using your precepts but what if ones morals are different to another on any given subject?

The God I am talking about, you say never comes down to interact with us. Wrong!! That is exactly what He did when Jesus Christ was on the earth 2000 years ago.

Also, if you are saying your morals are based on experience then your morals will never be objective as they will change depending on circumstances. Morally, it may be ok to steal in some circumstances, kill in some circumstances..again subjectivity. This leads to a point of everyone having different morals in turn leading to chaos.

The Bible through Jesus gives pretty clear morality 'Love the Lord with all your, heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as yourself.' Jesus goes on to explain that your neighbour is any other person. However, I suppose scientists don't believe in love as you can't test it, reason it, nor see it.

I am pretty sure if everyone followed Jesus' teaching, the world would be a better place!

Quakerz
Posts: 20958
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 6:32 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Quakerz » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:53 am

Baz, we need some proof that god came down 2,000 years ago, and it actually was god, and that he did stuff. Also, he's been pretty damn quiet ever since.

As far as I'm concerned, it was all just made up by primitive story tellers. I cannot take the bible seriously.
Image

“Everybody knows where that club is going now, so I’m out of the way. They can carry on, it’s their club, they can keep it." - Raj Singh, 2017

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by Spyman » Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:28 am

Darlobaz79 wrote:
I am pretty sure if everyone followed Jesus' teaching, the world would be a better place!
Well yes, if all 7 billion people lived life by the same beliefs and principles, the world would certainly be a better place, whether these beliefs were fact or fiction.

But the problem is, the amount of conflict caused by all the people who believe different stories made up thousands of years ago because they all think their story is better than the next one.

If everyone just took things at face value and looked objectively at evidence, and then the world would also be a better place. Far less wars and stuff.
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:45 pm

Darlobaz79 wrote:The UK's objective standard that has been developed over centuries is a Christian moral code. The fact you find the best ones, ones that don't rely on religion is subjective which proves my point as does the fact that you say you can create your own standard using your precepts but what if ones morals are different to another on any given subject?
I disagree with people morally all the time! What I don't then do is quote scripture mindlessly like a fucking sheep; I instead use reason, logic, and evidence to try and make them understand my point of view.

And the UK's objective standard obviously originated as a Christian moral code but we've moved far past it. Like I said, it's developed over centuries, and we now no longer rely on religious moral codes but on the precepts I mentioned, which makes the UK a far better place. Again, no god or religious text is needed, just reason, logic, empathy, experience, and science.

You talk about objectivity as well yet you clearly ignore vast amounts of the Bible's apparently objective morality, and cherry pick the bits which agree with your own sense of right and wrong. It's not objective if you're missing bits out because you don't agree with them. So which bits should we consider objective then? The homosexuality stoning? The slavery-condoning? The "believe in the Christian god or else" threats? The aggressive sexism? Or just the bits which already corroborate with your own version of morality? I rest my case...

You're already being subjective about apparent objective morality.
Darlobaz79 wrote:The God I am talking about, you say never comes down to interact with us. Wrong!! That is exactly what He did when Jesus Christ was on the earth 2000 years ago.
That's not the point I was making. In the Old Testament, "god" or "the Lord" regularly comes down and actually interacts with his various followers, yet he never does that anymore and expects us to rely on the written word.

First of all, why does he not come down and talk to us anymore? Second of all, is he really that stupid? Languages come and go, countries come and go, and written language is open to interpretation, especially when it needs translating. If he really was the all-knowing creator of the universe then he wouldn't have relied on such a transitory, unpredictable mode of communication, especially when, in the Old Testament, he's actually coming down and talking to the human race.

But since you've mentioned Jesus: there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. Zero. No Roman records mention his execution, no contemporary historians mention a miracle man walking around Jerusalem, all the New Testament Gospels were written well after he supposedly died so are based on hearsay at best, the authors of the Gospels cannot be identified and were written too late to actually be who they say they are, and they were altered and added to many times over the centuries, and every bit of evidence is "after the fact".

On that basis, you could argue that Hercules was a real person.

So, never mind asking if Jesus was the son of any god or even god himself, did he even exist?
Darlobaz79 wrote:Also, if you are saying your morals are based on experience then your morals will never be objective as they will change depending on circumstances. Morally, it may be ok to steal in some circumstances, kill in some circumstances..again subjectivity. This leads to a point of everyone having different morals in turn leading to chaos.
I see your point about objectivity but I was using the term in the sense that everyone has moral "goals" which they strive to achieve.

Anyways, morality should be subjective to a degree because they shouldn't be dictated to you by some invisible dictator figure! They should be discussed, argued, reasoned, and backed up with evidence. You can do a similar thing in your own mind: it's called deciding right from wrong.

Regardless of what the Bible says, its guidance should still be subject to criticism, and discussion. I don't care who fucking wrote it.
Darlobaz79 wrote:The Bible through Jesus gives pretty clear morality 'Love the Lord with all your, heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as yourself.' Jesus goes on to explain that your neighbour is any other person. However, I suppose scientists don't believe in love as you can't test it, reason it, nor see it.

I am pretty sure if everyone followed Jesus' teaching, the world would be a better place!
Another strawman argument: scientists don't believe in love? Fuck off will you! Love is a product of evolution, as are all emotions, so yes actually they can be tested and reasoned.

With regards to Jesus, I follow that precept myself yet I'm not a Christian. It's called having empathy, and morals, and wanting to live in a society with other human beings. I don't need Jesus telling me that. I can decide that myself, and I also owe a lot to my parents (again, atheists). Nobody needs some fictitious character as a foundation for their life.

And what about the horrific moral guidance that I keep mentioning over, and over, and over again? God is pretty fucking clear on that s***. And even Jesus says that the stuff in the Old Testament should be followed:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17-20)

When you couple that with the fact that JESUS IS GOD, and that the Ten Commandments and Genesis are in the Old Testament, and the Bible states that God's word is eternal, then you can't have your cake and eat it.

Moreover, Jesus isn't as great as Christians like to make him out to be. Observe:

"Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned [to hell]." (Mark 16:15-16)

What was that about love thy neighbour again? Jesus is nothing but a fucking hypocrite. Yeah, love thy neighbour, but anyone who doesn't do exactly as I say is going to burn and suffer for all eternity.

I can quote more "Jesus being a c***" lines if you want. There's also a bit where he claims you can see the entire Earth from the top of a mountain, and a bit where he confirms that demons exist and can possess men, and a bit where he condones slavery... :shock:

But I digress... the overall point being that morality is not morality if you're just doing what you're told. It should be discussed and decided upon and backed up with evidence. Saying "Coz the Bible sayz so" isn't good enough, unless you can prove that it should be respected as a source. Because all the evidence suggests it shouldn't.

The world would actually be a much better place if Jesus and Christianity were never invented in the first place, along with every other fucking religion.

Fatty eats roadkill
Posts: 3664
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman

Re: Kaka

Post by Fatty eats roadkill » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:38 pm

Fuck me DOTU, instead of writing a load of crap blah blah blah that people coming in from 9 hrs in the pub really can't be arsed to read why don't you just say to baz - bollox!!!!!
Waiting for Raj to shaft them!

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6337
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kaka

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:54 pm

Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Fuck me DOTU, instead of writing a load of crap blah blah blah that people coming in from 9 hrs in the pub really can't be arsed to read why don't you just say to baz - bollox!!!!!
Haha, yeah that post is a bit long-winded. It's just Baz's posts (and religion in general) tend to have so much wrong with them that by the time I've covered everything, it's like I've written a fucking essay.

No doubt Baz will just cover his eyes and ears and disappear again now, like always.

Post Reply