knapplc Posted May 6, 2012 Author Share Posted May 6, 2012 Brown says media frenzy will keep him from testifying Ron Brown's letter to Journal Star readers Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Brown says in his letter to the Lincoln Journal Star that he supports UNL's anti-discrimination policy. Yet he disagrees with an anti-discrimination city ordinance. How's that work, exactly? Simple. Anti-descrimination laws lead to reverse discrimination. It's called affirmative action. Yes, it is a reality. Link to comment
cscott2win Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 But those on ESPN condeming Ron Brown of using the University of Nebraska as a platform to further his cause are also using ESPN as one to further their's. I find it ironic that they have recently started another article about the subject and one that doesn't have a comment section included. It doesn't matter however for me as they gave me the boot for some reason. Actually posting on the subject reminded me of arguing with Buffalo fans on blogs!! Either way it is a personal choice. Don't expect me to give you any favors.I don't care what laws they make. Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Either way it is a personal choice. Don't expect me to give you any favors.I don't care what laws they make. Then don't expect me to care about your beliefs. Or rather, your personal choice. 1 Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Just a real quick note. Orthodox Jews, do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, there fore they still keep the Mosaic law. Christ was the new covenant or new law if you will. Christ would disagree with you. Link to comment
Omaha-Husker Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Brown says in his letter to the Lincoln Journal Star that he supports UNL's anti-discrimination policy. Yet he disagrees with an anti-discrimination city ordinance. How's that work, exactly? Simple. Anti-descrimination laws lead to reverse discrimination. It's called affirmative action. Yes, it is a reality. Anti-discrimination laws are not the same as affirmative action. 2 Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Well, it might not make sense to you...but a sociologist would say that all groups of people assembled together under a common cause either in person or online share a standard set belief system no matter who or where they are. I think sociologist would recognize groups of people who agree to a group of common causes. Not a single agreement (a disbelief in a god). That's like saying Republicans and Democrats are all the same because they agree that serial killers are in the wrong. A single agreement doesn't make a belief system. A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs (plural). As an example, I'd say that all atheists believe that there is a lack of proof of the existence of God and that therefore he doesn't exist. First, I'd disagree that atheists don't assert that a god doesn't exist....it's just that there is no evidence (a lack of EVIDENCE...not proof) to accept that a god exists. It's the same as saying there is a lack of evidence to accept the Lochness Monster exists. That's a common belief. THIS is the type of thing I'm referring to. I used the word faith for that...mainly because of how I believe faith is defined...you could just as easily swap the word for belief system if it makes you feel more comfortable. I don't feel comfortable doing that because I don't agree with your definition of faith. I don't go with what the dictionary goes with as far as faith is defined, I go with what the Bible says which is: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." - Hebrews 11:1. That's great, but the rest (77%-80% of the world's population) doesn't define faith based on that Biblical verse. As a logical example...let's say you buy something from Amazon. You're waiting for it to be delivered to your. You have a confidence in what you hope for (that Amazon will deliver it) and assurance about what you do not see (that they are shipping it to you and that the package actually exists). Again, this expectation that Amazon will deliver something (for me) is NOT based on faith (belief without evidential support). I have a great assumption that Amazon will deliver it to me because I have paid them money. They are a corporation that relies on purchases from customers. And in order for them to keep getting money from us...they need to deliver their product. What if a customer doesn't get their delivery. Let's say Amazon screws up the order somehow. Is the Hebrews verse still talking about this instance? If so, god has failed me because I haven't received my package. "I'm just saying here that a person or group of people who have a set of beliefs either for or against something can be defined by that belief system. Atheists are defined by their common belief that God doesn't exist and they rally around this belief over at http://reddit.com/r/Atheism and I've been thoroughly dismissed there more than once JUST for being a Christian...even when trying to logically engage anyone there. There is a real mob mentality and a united front of the belief that God doesn't exist (and that all Christians are dumb because of their belief in God lol)." (for some reason Huskerboard would not quote the rest for me) First off, don't rely on an internet website (particularly reddit.com) to encompass the beliefs of a certain peoples. It's obvious that people act differently online from how they act in real life. Otherwise, people on YouTube would actually think everything they ever see is "gay" or "the most f'ing retarded thing they have ever seen". Seriously, people on the internet are not a great barometer to judge the rest of the human race by. Well, perception/opinion is not fact. agreed. Then do you think anyone should believe in your god without sufficient evidence? Many people of the Christian faith say they should. We won't know who was right until the end of time right? or not ever know...since most atheists say you'll just cease to exist. But if you're basing your beliefs on what might happen after you die...why believe them at all? You don't know what happens any more than I do. All kidding aside, there is always a right and wrong answer even if it isn't apparent. agreed. So why assert that yours is right? This is discussed with a belief of absolute truths or universal truths. Just because the knowledge doesn't exist to define whether or not something fits as an absolute/universal truth does not make it any less of one. We discussed this at length in Philosophy of Religion and then again in Logic class in college. Again, see the counter arugments to TAG Even though it may be possible to have knowledge of a defined entity who is considered a god...it doesn't make it any less true. But, why make the assumption that it IS true until there is absolute knowledge? THAT is the only belief atheists agree on. And one that turned on the light for me when I was fighting with my own current belief system. Why would I just accept something (including a specific denomiation, sect, belief system) when it didn't have a rational justification for it? I've been presented god claims my entire life...so why I should I believe a single one of them? Purely because it "could be possible??!!!" That's irrational! Neither atheism nor theism rest purely on science. um, agreed. But has nothing to do with my original context. I never said atheism had anything to do with science. There are atheists who might actually reject scientific principles. Being an atheist has nothing to do with accepting the scientific method. Both involve faith—atheism in purposeless blind chance; theism in an intelligent First Cause. Of course, I'm referring to the Big Bang or whatever you consider the start of existence of the universe. again, atheism has NOTHING to do with beginning of the universe. NO single atheistic "principal" states that atheists are required to believe in a certain set of scientific theories regarding the beginning of the universe. Secondly, I disagree with your assumption that atheism involves faith in purposeless blind chance. I choose to accept that there is no such thing as chance. Random chance is actually determined by the natural laws of the universe. We, as humans, may perceive it as random...but it is not. Still not convinced? Just break down the word atheist. Greek 'Theos' meaning God and 'a' meaning without. Atheists believe that a life without deities is better than one with it. See, you jumped from defining the word into making an assumption about the beliefs of a people. I agree about the original Greek. But it's to make an assumption about a single person. A single person is a-theos. Godless or without god. The Latin is the same; one that does not believe in God. But this has NOTHING to do with the assumption that an atheist believes that a life without a god is better than one with. Many atheists, including myself, would actually accept a god if one was actually presented with sufficient evidence. I actually think the odds would be staggering if you compared it to the number of theists when presented with sufficient evidence that a god did NOT exist. In this instance, I actually think atheists are the ones who are more open minded. Yes, skeptical at first glance when asked to accept something based off of a book or folklore...but more accepting than theists when actual nautralist (irrefutable) evidence is brought to them. I realize atheists don't want to be defined and that this is the main driver behind the 'we don't have a belief system' but I just look at the evidence as you would...logically and without bias. again, I think you do look at it with bias when you assume all atheists think that life is actually "better" without a deity. It's the same conclusion many door to door Bible salesman come to when they ask "so, why do you hate god? What happened in your life to make you ignore him?" sorry I replied to this here. I never heard if it was okay to respond to you in PM. Feel free to PM me in response though 1 Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Sure. What lost my faith for me was translation...or should I say, mistranslation of the original Greek and Hebrew language. I immediately knew, based on the Greek, that the Trinity was false. There is no other way to translate it. It was added in, period. Obviously, as a Protestant Trinitarian, this made me question EVERYTHING I was taught. I've kept in constant study of religion since then...not just my own but all others as well...looking for something that felt truthful or could answer any questions I might have...and in doing so, this has made me quite knowledgeable on a variety of religious subjects. It's also made me tolerant to a wide variety of opinions and beliefs. I came to the conclusion that I still believed in God, but that I didn't believe in what the churches taught about God. Plus, when I look in the Bible and REALLY study it...without the bias of translation, I came to some amazing conclusions that answered questions that myself and other atheists had: Except...you never really were an atheist were you? You still believed in god, etc...just never accepted organized religion. Although, technically still accepted the Judeo-Christian sect for some reason. Link to comment
Ratt Mhule Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 First, I'd disagree that atheists don't agree that a god doesn't exist....it's just that there is no evidence (a lack of EVIDENCE...not proof) to accept that a god exists. It's the same as saying there is a lack of evidence to accept the Lochness Monster exists. Goodness gracious, how can you say there is no evidence to prove the existence of nessie. This should be all the proof you need! 1 Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 First, I'd disagree that atheists don't agree that a god doesn't exist....it's just that there is no evidence (a lack of EVIDENCE...not proof) to accept that a god exists. It's the same as saying there is a lack of evidence to accept the Lochness Monster exists. Goodness gracious, how can you say there is no evidence to prove the existence of nessie. This should be all the proof you need! hahah, Po...I love ya man! 1 Link to comment
Hercules Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Brown says in his letter to the Lincoln Journal Star that he supports UNL's anti-discrimination policy. Yet he disagrees with an anti-discrimination city ordinance. How's that work, exactly? Simple. Anti-descrimination laws lead to reverse discrimination. It's called affirmative action. Yes, it is a reality. Anti-discrimination laws are not the same as affirmative action. And also, reverse discrimination is not why Ron Brown opposed the ordinance. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination." The term itself implies that one group is superior to another, basically saying that I can discriminate against YOU, but YOU can't discriminate against ME. Discrimination is discrimination, period. Please stop using such an ignorant term. You can be the victim of discrimination. You are not immune. Link to comment
knapplc Posted May 7, 2012 Author Share Posted May 7, 2012 For the funnies only, not meant to be a political statement. This is just the current topic with anything relevant to gays: Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Discrimination is discrimination, period. Please stop using such an ignorant term. Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 The biggest bonfire of a sports story in years was the Sandusky/Paterno case at Penn State, which reached its media apex when Penn State played Nebraska in its first non-Paterno coached game in decades. ESPN and the national media chose one image to play over and over and over that day, and it was Ron Brown leading both teams in prayer. Whatever the sports and newscasters opined about that moment, it reflected overwhelmingly positive on Ron Brown and the University of Nebraska. So it works both ways, depending on the story. That one was about Ron Brown healing. This one is about Ron Brown damning innocent people to hell. Link to comment
Recommended Posts