HuskersNow

The interesting thing to me has always been - we all consider ourselves to be the open minded ones.

 

Probably a lot less true than we think.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't disregard the claims of others. I do honestly evaluate their claims. The

problem is that people have different criteria that they use to establish "truth." I don't think it is close minded to

demand evidence.

I can’t speak for your mother, of course. But as for myself I feel sorry for people who are atheists. I don’t think they are necessarily bad people. I suspect many simply haven’t put themselves in a position to experience the grace and gifts of God. Or perhaps they’ve heard, been exposed, and learned all they needed, but it just didn’t happen for them. Which is really unfortunate. For them.

 

Or maybe your god is lazy and hasen't revealed himself in a coherent enough manner to be taken seriously. Or maybe it's worse than that. Maybe your god actually hates atheists and wants us to burn in hell. Ever think of that? Ever do a quick study of predestination?

 

And I'm sorry, but feeling bad isn't good enough. If you think I'm about to roast alive forever thanks to your loving god, I need to see some emotion, here. I don't think you really mean it.

Ha ha! Oh, I don't feel bad about anything. It's your choice. If you had an open mind about things, I'd be glad to share with you to help you along a path that I know is right. If that's what you really wanted. But the thing is, Husker_X, you give me the impression that you don’t actually want to learn, or experience, or find out the truth. You just want to ridicule and argue. You are far too intelligent to have faith in God, or so you think. So I am not sure what’s going to happen to you when you die. Good luck with that, though.

Does having an open mind mean accepting whatever dogma you profess and not thinking critically about it? Also, how

do you know that the path you follow is the right one?

Of course the process of dying could be painful, but I don't fear the state of not being alive. Consider that every night we sleep and lose consciousness. That's what death is like, but we don't dream and don't wake up.

Whether you adhere to the Big Crunch theory or the various forms of the entropy theories, you're right - most any scientifically plausible theory of the universe's fate ends poorly for humans.

Interesting sort-of-related Asimov stories The Last Question and The Last Answer

The Last Question was a great story by Asimov. It even has a surprise ending.

I just wanted to get your opinions on this. Personally, I don't fear death even slightly. To me death is nothingness, the opposite of consciousness. Why should I fear that?

an intern could be the next nick saban, but until someone gives them a chance and bumps the old, ineffective, fart off in front of them off, you'd never know it.

 

i dont care who you are, you cant just go grab an all star list of people that have made a name for themselves for long term success. you have to find talent. give Bo a chance here.

 

Hes done pretty damn good on the defensive side, where he got to pick, and I'd bet my ass that you didnt know more than a couple names on his defensive staff when he first got here.

 

He never got to pick his offensive staff. Dont knock his choices until:

 

1: he actually names them

 

2: they actually do some coaching

Bo doesn't necessarily need an all star coaching staff, he needs at least decent coaches at every position and he doesn't have that. As it stands right now, Bo has kept Cotton as the offensive line coach (or at least co-offensive line coach.) Choosing to keep a coach from the previous year is tantamount to choosing them because he has the choice to fire said coach and doesn't. I will knock that "choice" until the cows come home. Barney adds nothing to this coaching staff. Without at least a decent offensive line, it hardly matters who the other offensive coaches are.

This is Jon Garrison the NU center from about 10 yrs ago, right? Does he have enough coaching experience to take on a position coaching job at a major FBS school?

No it's this Garrison:

 

 

 

+1

 

Is this a package deal including Mr. Hat?

Can Mr. Garrison and Mr. Hat coach the offensive line?

The only real concern I have is the issue between loyalty and striving for the best. I don't pretend to know the answer, but while I love the fact that Pelini is fiercely loyal to his players and fellow staff members, I wonder if he's sacrificing the betterment of the program in doing so. Some are disappointed that he is not after the biggest names and the brightest rising stars for coaching positions, and I can understand that sentiment. However, it might be that Pelini genuinely thinks that Beck, for instance, is the best candidate for OC at Nebraska. It's just a matter of whether or not Bo is letting his loyalty and commitment get in the way of the program. As far as the defense goes, his once-no-name assistants have all put together one of the consistently best defenses in the nation the past few years. How much of that is Bo himself, I don't know, but it remains to be seen how this "no-name" offensive staff will function. If it fails to improve, I think his loyalty, however admirable, becomes an issue.

I would say at this point Bo's loyalty is a liability and not an asset. His loyalty has blinded him to how bad of a coach Cotton really is

If it is true that John Garrison, an intern, is going to be one of the new offensive coaches then I think Bo leaves a lot to be desired in terms of having an eye for offensive coaching talent, to put it nicely. This guy was with the team this year and helped coach the offensive line with Cotton. How could having the same coaches on the offensive line be an improvement? Anyone?

I would like nothing more than for Bo to succeed at Nebraska, but his actions show me that he is a good defensive coordinator masquerading as a head coach and nothing more.

That's what I don't like about death. It's that everything continues without you. Sucks.

But it's comforting to pass away knowing everything will still continue without you. Whether it's your kids' lives, your spouse, Husker football - it'll all go on.

Well, if you want to be technical, eventually all life on earth will end because the earth will become far too hot, and then far too cold, for life. Even if you object and say that humans can find planets in other solar systems to live on,eventually they will become uninhabitable, too. In due time every single star in the universe will die out leaving a bevy of cold, dead stars in a universe void of light.

Why can't Cotton go, too? Without a decent offensive line, it won't matter who the other offensive coaches are.

 

It is literally impossible to prove a negative. It does not work both ways, The burden of proof lies with you. How about this, you don't even have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exists, just that he is more likely to exist than not.

 

Its not my job to prove anything to you. I don't know you and I don't care what you believe in quite frankly. Im not gonna waste my time trying to prove this to you bc you won't take me seriously anyways. Let's just say things in MY life made me come to the conclusion that I believe God exists. And until you can prove to me that he DOES NOT exist, I will keep my beliefs and you may keep yours. How bout that? Now give me another +1

You sound very angry. Why do you say that I'm not taking you seriously? You know I read a book once where two physicists were debating whether God exists or not and the theist in the debate brought forth very good arguments. I disagreed with him, but I took his position seriously. If anyone is interested it was a debate between Quentin Smith and William Craig.

 

How do you not understand that it is impossible to prove a negative? Just try to and you will find that it just can't happen. Why would I have prove to you that God does not exist? Can you prove to me that any other God doesn't exist? If not, then why don't you believe in them?

 

FWIW I never gave you a +1. That was someone else.

 

Well, that is probably what those people do for a living. I am not a physicist and I hate physics to begin with, so I cannot make any good arguments using physics. The only arguments I am able to make have to do with what has happened in my own life and that is all I need. Apparently, you need more. I don't need any science majors trying to prove God exists using E=MC2 or F=M*A. I already have my faith. If you are ever to receive this same faith, you need to find in the way you deem fit. I cannot bring faith to you. And if you don't find it, then you don't find it. But now I know not to post my religious beliefs in the religion forum bc I will just have to show evidence every time.

The problem is that someone could make claims similar to yours except that the name of the God was changed, but then you wouldn't believe them. Someone could say that they have had personal experiences with their God but you wouldn't believe it because it is a different God then yours. Someone could say that they believe in Allah on faith, but you still wouldn't believe them. Why? What makes your faith and personal experiences more relevant than theirs?

It is the same thing every time, only the name is changed.

 

It is literally impossible to prove a negative. It does not work both ways, The burden of proof lies with you. How about this, you don't even have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exists, just that he is more likely to exist than not.

 

Its not my job to prove anything to you. I don't know you and I don't care what you believe in quite frankly. Im not gonna waste my time trying to prove this to you bc you won't take me seriously anyways. Let's just say things in MY life made me come to the conclusion that I believe God exists. And until you can prove to me that he DOES NOT exist, I will keep my beliefs and you may keep yours. How bout that? Now give me another +1

You sound very angry. Why do you say that I'm not taking you seriously? You know I read a book once where two physicists were debating whether God exists or not and the theist in the debate brought forth very good arguments. I disagreed with him, but I took his position seriously. If anyone is interested it was a debate between Quentin Smith and William Craig.

 

How do you not understand that it is impossible to prove a negative? Just try to and you will find that it just can't happen. Why would I have prove to you that God does not exist? Can you prove to me that any other God doesn't exist? If not, then why don't you believe in them?

 

FWIW I never gave you a +1. That was someone else.

 

 

 

Well pretty much anything cannot be proven 100%. Any skeptic can give you some crazy argument that something does not certainly exist. You believe what you believe and that is final. One day all of everybody's questions will be answered. Until that day we can stop arguing because certainly nobody is going to win this argument and certainly no one is going to convert anybody to a different religion.

I think the problem here is that some people have vastly different criteria for their beliefs. Some people will believe on faith alone, while others require incontrovertible evidence to believe.

 

It is literally impossible to prove a negative. It does not work both ways, The burden of proof lies with you. How about this, you don't even have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exists, just that he is more likely to exist than not.

 

Its not my job to prove anything to you. I don't know you and I don't care what you believe in quite frankly. Im not gonna waste my time trying to prove this to you bc you won't take me seriously anyways. Let's just say things in MY life made me come to the conclusion that I believe God exists. And until you can prove to me that he DOES NOT exist, I will keep my beliefs and you may keep yours. How bout that? Now give me another +1

You sound very angry. Why do you say that I'm not taking you seriously? You know I read a book once where two physicists were debating whether God exists or not and the theist in the debate brought forth very good arguments. I disagreed with him, but I took his position seriously. If anyone is interested it was a debate between Quentin Smith and William Craig.

How do you not understand that it is impossible to prove a negative? Just try to and you will find that it just can't happen. Why would I have prove to you that God does not exist? Can you prove to me that any other God doesn't exist? If not, then why don't you believe in them?

FWIW I never gave you a +1. That was someone else.

I don't think it matters who wrote the Bible. The real question is whether or not there is enough evidence to support the events that are portrayed in the Bible.

 

So why do you believe what is written in the Bible, but discard the accounts from other holy books? What makes the Bible so unique?

 

Because that is my right. Why don't you believe in the bible?

I need evidence. Show me the evidence and I will believe.

 

So easy to say isn't it.

 

Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, today I will try to convince HuskersNow that God is in fact real. God will you please reveal yourself to HuskersNow. God...God...Um...

 

This is not a court room and I cannot prove beyond a reason of a doubt that God exists. Its called faith. If you can show me evidence on the contrary I will admit I am wrong and you are right. It works both ways.

It is literally impossible to prove a negative. It does not work both ways, The burden of proof lies with you. How about this, you don't even have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exists, just that he is more likely to exist than not.

I don't think it matters who wrote the Bible. The real question is whether or not there is enough evidence to support the events that are portrayed in the Bible.

 

So why do you believe what is written in the Bible, but discard the accounts from other holy books? What makes the Bible so unique?

 

Because that is my right. Why don't you believe in the bible?

I need evidence. Show me the evidence and I will believe.

 

So easy to say isn't it.

In other words, you don't have any.

I don't think it matters who wrote the Bible. The real question is whether or not there is enough evidence to support the events that are portrayed in the Bible.

 

So why do you believe what is written in the Bible, but discard the accounts from other holy books? What makes the Bible so unique?

 

Because that is my right. Why don't you believe in the bible?

I need evidence. Show me the evidence and I will believe.

I don't think it matters who wrote the Bible. The real question is whether or not there is enough evidence to support the events that are portrayed in the Bible.

So why do you believe what is written in the Bible, but discard the accounts from other holy books? What makes the Bible so unique?

This is what the rest of the big 12 is going to look like after we leave:

I don't think that's an unchallenged assumption, but to date there has been no evidence otherwise. I think most assume if there is life out there it will be very different than what we understand, but we have had no chance to observe/study anything different than what we know. This is maybe the most radical departure from traditional we have observed.

 

Don't mistake the title; this life is very much carbon based. It is phosphorous that is being substituted out with arsenic.

I understand that this organism is carbon based, but I was just explaining that many people usually assume that life elsewhere will be carbon based.

For all we know, we could eventually discover life forms that are a radical departure from anything that we have ever observed.

 

I'm not familiar with the episode you are talking about...do you have a link?

 

I believe this is the video that Husker_x mentioned.

Go to 6:42 to hear him lose his temper. Honestly, I can't blame him for saying that. She goes on to say that the hosts have chosen hell because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. Afterwards, she gets upset at his use of the f word and hangs up. I don't understand why some Christians are more worried about "salty language" than billions of innocent people burning in hell. Of course, in their minds, they are not innocent. Especially the unbaptized babies - they're the worst.

It seems to me that many people assume that life has to be carbon based, just because life on earth is. I think that is a very biased view of things. For all we know, most alien life is completely different than life here on earth.

One thing to remember is that Nebraska ran for 265 yards against a better rush defense, than OU's, in Colorado.

The sad thing is that we have two coaches on this staff that are better WR coaches than him.

I'm just glad that Harvey Perlman quelled this situation that, without his help, would have ruined the University's image by taking time out of his busy schedule in his ivory tower to save this fine University from the evil that is Bo.

Zac Lee will never take another snap at NU. His career is finished, sadly.