Manchester City Thread

ZeroTheHero said:
You didn't do too well in philosophy, did you?



I think and I believe is pretty synonymous, don't you think? Anyway, how can you disprove something which is beyond logic, probably beyond your comprehension, with logic?

And the reason I said that Atheists contemplate Gods is because I've never met anyone more eager to discuss gods and their (non) existence than Atheists. So, clearly they spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. I'm not the only one who has that notion about Atheists by the way, and when I studied religion my classes were full of Atheists posing all kinds of questions to the professors. I studied religion because I find it interesting. I don't particularly find the divine interesting, but I find people who believe in something to be particularly interesting. Rationality often comes secondary for them in many situations, and Atheists are quite the same as Theists in that regard.
Click to expand...

Obviously did better than you.

What has that (bold) got to do with anything?

If someone defines their god as a square circle it is easily disproven. If someone defines their god as beyond logic then it is completely meaningless and incoherent. I would be Ignostic about it.

Your supposed experiences are of no relevance. It has little to do with what atheism actually is (which you seem not to be able to make your mind up about)
 
Last edited:
The point is that if you're an atheist, you believe in something. I don't. Still on the subject of divinity of course.

Agnostics are smug in the sense that we think everyone else is wrong and we're right though. Sounds familiar?

EDIT: I also added and modified my post before I noticed your reply, so you might wanna re-read parts. Secondly, I don't think I would be able to smack 15 study points worth of religious understanding into your head through a forum discussion thread, especially when the thread is about Manchester City. Why 15? Because Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism is a 15 point subject and a pre-requisite for Bachelor in religion.

I'd like to suggest you read about Henry Steel Olcott and his attempt to mix logic and religion.

To your question, is "logic" your religion?
And you didn't answer my question, whether you believe in love and why (not)?

EDIT: Quite funny that all this started because I mentioned that there aren't really many City fans that can legally drink out there...
 
Last edited:
There is no irrefutable proof that proves love exists. It can all be explained with primal instincts. Poets have tried since the dawn of time, but everybody has a different opinion about it.

The existence of God is much, much more complex discussion. We should just accept sooner rather than later that the discussion isn't going to bear fruits and one of the reason is because you're more interested in posing difficult questions and bicker than to actually read the answers to the questions you pose.

Godotelli said:
Your supposed experiences are of no relevance. It has little to do with what atheism actually is (which you seem not to be able to make your mind up about)
Click to expand...

I'd like to challenge you to prove the accusation in the parentheses by the way. What are you confused about?

Lastly, I'd like to mention that if you don't know the difference between the literal and symbolic meaning of "believe" my earlier post won't make sense at all. Which is why I figured you weren't straight A student in philosophy. I didn't mean that as an insult by the way. It is futile to discuss something transcendent with a person who is unable or unwilling to understand the difference. We don't even have to have the same symbolic understanding, but literal vs symbolic is a mismatch from the get go. Sorry.

Thankfully, as a teacher I only have to worry about the more literal and factual aspects of religion.
 
Last edited:
ZeroTheHero said:
Lastly, I'd like to mention that if you don't know the difference between the literal and symbolic meaning of "believe" my earlier post won't make sense at all. Which is why I figured you weren't straight A student in philosophy. I didn't mean that as an insult by the way. It is futile to discuss something transcendent with a person who is unable or unwilling to understand the difference. We don't even have to have the same symbolic understanding, but literal vs symbolic is a mismatch from the get go. Sorry.
Click to expand...


You're "noninsult" was not specific, so feel free to quote the specific points I made where I have misunderstood the "symbolic". I didn't write a lot so it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Your entire posts made it quite clear that you're either unwilling or unable to step away from the purely literal meaning of each sentence.

Your turn.
 
Knowing the both of you, this will go on and on and on and on and on ...

Why don't you continue in PM's, because frankly, who cares ?

No disrespect but this is a very sterile discussion between two people who don't want to listen to each others arguments...
 
Who the fuck cares. I'm sorry you're not able to have a grown up discussion about a sensitive subject just yet Godotelli but I have to admit I expected a little bit more of you.
 
You're the one here throwing in little ad homs and coming up with some horseshit about the literal and the 'symbolic' philosophical meaning of the word "believe" as an odd strained means of asserting that I'm wrong without actually arguing it.
Why does it matter? I'm not prepared to further engage with someone who acts in this way. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in giving you the chance to backup your assertions twice now and you've refused. That's enough for me.
 
Lami said:
Well thank God it's all over then.
Click to expand...

I-see-what-you-did-there.jpg
 
Godotelli said:
You're the one here throwing in little ad homs and coming up with some horseshit about the literal and the 'symbolic' philosophical meaning of the word "believe" as an odd strained means of asserting that I'm wrong without actually arguing it.
Click to expand...

I should've said symbolic meaning of language in general. Unless you didn't notice, we did discuss something that isn't physical or literal.

Godotelli said:
Why does it matter? I'm not prepared to further engage with someone who acts in this way. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in giving you the chance to backup your assertions twice now and you've refused. That's enough for me.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I talked about. What a Theist sees as proof is not proof to one who doesn't have the same belief. I'm not a Theist and I don't see any proof anywhere. I just see a lot of philosophical explanations and possible answers. You don't see them, which is fine. My point were that Atheists and Theists are equal in that regard. Lack of proof is not the same as proof that something does not exist.

You were the childish one asking about traffic lights and such, I chose to ignore the childishness for a while but I supposed you just weren't able or willing to discuss it properly.

EDIT: Last but not least, Agnosticism can't be explained with one sentence or a single word like you seem to think. "Knowledge" fits as a short description for Gnosticism though, but "enlightened" might be better. Agnosticism and Gnosticism is not the same.
 
Last edited:
Traffic lights was obviously a joke. I like to joke as well as be serious. Also it was the 1st post I made with a joke and you replied to it (taking it seriously) straight away, so "I chose to ignore the childishness for a while " appears to be another nonsense.

Who says I don't see them? I do. I agree that lack of proof =/= proof of nonexistence. Never claimed otherwise.

As for the 'symbolic', well, when you make up your mind what you mean and how it applies specifically to my arguments (and which ones), feel free to do as I've asked 2 times already. if you're not prepared to do that then this will be my final post on the subject.

Agnosticism translates as 'without knowledge'. There's more to it, I understand that, just as there's more to A-theism than 'without belief in deities'


Anyway, off to see how God's own club player, Emyr Huws, does for Wigan
 
Last edited:
Well, simplifying matters in your mother tongue, which is what I felt you did, is a lot easier than having to try and explain something abstract in a foreign tongue. Heck, I'd even struggle in my own tongue on this subject. I also think this is a subject that cannot be simplified but I respect the wish to do so.

Luckily, as I mentioned, teaching religion is much simpler as we don't have to contemplate whether any of them are "true" or not. We respect all religions and go into the subject with the perspective that everything is true for the people that believe in them. In my classes there are usually several religions represented as well, so respect remains the most important factor. I often use those pupils as in-depth information whenever they're willing. It's much more interesting to hear about a religion from a believer/practitioner than someone who've just read a lot about it.

Sorry for any inconvenience and have fun at the match. I'm going to nurse my hangover.
 
Last edited:
Reading these posts is actually interesting, just finished my A-level philosophy and ethics. Hadn't considered going to Uni and continuing it but it seems I have a great deal more to learn.


So I mean, even if nothing else comes of this, at least you may have inspired me to go to Uni next year!
 
Well, if that inspired you to consider University I'd say it was all well worth it. Education is rewarding both economically but more importantly personally.

I wish you the best of luck at the Uni, TheJinxedOne.
 
Any Man City fans around here or just students trying to outsmart each other with their vast worldly experience ?
Back on topic would be a good call.
I have seen enough, I will delete the whole lot of O.T. and render this debate pointless.

Its a big forum ,there is lots of room for debate, why do people decide to squat in threads & hijack them ?
 
So FC Porto declared that they received €30.5M for 56.67% of the economic rights of Eliaquim Mangala, which puts the total deal at around €54M, when the buy-out clause was reportadly €40m. Another shady business in Portuguese football...
 
superleeds1 said:
Any Man City fans around here or just students trying to outsmart each other with their vast worldly experience ?
Back on topic would be a good call.
I have seen enough, I will delete the whole lot of O.T. and render this debate pointless.

Its a big forum ,there is lots of room for debate, why do people decide to squat in threads & hijack them ?
Click to expand...

Unless you noticed, the discussion escalated from Man City quite naturally because that's what happens sometimes.

---------------

Didn't look much like Manchester City wanted the community shield at all. I know it's a rather pointless trophy but since it's there for the taking, why not at least go for it?
 
Godotelli said:
:CONF:
What was the hold up then? City and Porto supposedly agreed a fee ages ago.

Wonder how 3rd party stuff relates to FFP?
Click to expand...

I've no idea what delaid the deal. Normally what happens is that the third party sell their % to the club, which then sell 100% of the deal to the buyer (this only when the club is forbidden to buy from third parties, like in England).

3rd party mostly likely are related to FFP, but even if not City only bought directly from Porto. Just find odd that City would pay €13m above the buy-out clause.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
Unless you noticed, the discussion escalated from Man City quite naturally because that's what happens sometimes.

---------------

Didn't look much like Manchester City wanted the community shield at all. I know it's a rather pointless trophy but since it's there for the taking, why not at least go for it?
Click to expand...


Yeah I noticed and it was developing nicely into troliing and flaming, so moderated.
If You all want to pit your wits open a thread in off topic entitled " I am smarter than You and can prove it with verbage ".

Kind of want to see some Man City stuff around here.
 
Think it moderated itself tbh.

Anyway, people go on about finding FFP loopholes and yet surely one of the biggest most obvious FFP loophole is 3rd party ownership?
 
Another overrated cb for City ?
He played for Standard and wasn't that special, but time will tell if he is good for City.
 
andy18cruz said:
I've no idea what delaid the deal. Normally what happens is that the third party sell their % to the club, which then sell 100% of the deal to the buyer (this only when the club is forbidden to buy from third parties, like in England).

3rd party mostly likely are related to FFP, but even if not City only bought directly from Porto. Just find odd that City would pay €13m above the buy-out clause.
Click to expand...

to be fair 3rd party ownership has been around longer than FFP.

Dont see how it helps with FFP tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom