Yep, you can't control what these guys say in a post match interview, so why get bothered?
OTT Session 3
- Thread starter Squarehat
- Start date
It stands to reason that if I am a non-believer then I won't believe the athlete about what they preach.
Likewise, the athlete, as a believer, may be preaching, because giving witness and testifying is part of their faith. They may hope to convert non-believers by leveraging the platform of their limited fame.
Some non-believers will let the words roll off their back like a duck. Still others may let the words wash over them and perhaps even convert.
When looked at this way, it seems to me to be perfectly rational and absent any cringe.
This entire take is based on the perspective that religion is the norm/default though. It's rational and absent cringe to you because we live in a christian center culture. If someone started talking about scientology and that Xenu is returning soon and they won because of their belief in Xenu and Tom Cruise, you'd find it pretty ****ing weird. As a listener, just because you don't believe the preaching being espoused, doesn't make it any less weird to listen to.
Not me. Perhaps others. I didn't mention any particular faith in my reply, even as I have spoken to many faiths on this board.
I would let words of Xenu roll off my back like a duck, even as I might show empathy to the one who tries to persuade me.
Wouldn't think them weird at all. Would think them as reflecting their dependent arising. A dependent arising filled with causes and conditions that I've never experienced in my 61 years, and could only imagine.
You're advocating letting the religious words roll off you're back like a duck, but why not advocate the same to religious criticism? If I give criticism to religious preaching why not let that roll off back like a duck or encourage all of the commenters in defense of religious interviewees to do so?
See the point? The default take is tolerance of religious preaching but an intolerance to people who say that religious preaching is cringy and inappropriate.
Did you need me as an open ally?
I don't think I objected to your criticism of it. That cerainly wasn't my intent. I'm all for freedom of speech and religion. I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, similar (but not identicallly) to how I believe you did.
I haven't told you not to criticize here. Neither have I thrown an insult or snide remark your way here. I haven't said I'm putting you on ignore here (or even felt the need to so). Have I?
I've only tried to explain why I don't particularly see it as problematic or cringe, from a social discussion standpoint, like I understand you prefer to be engaged. As such, I logically tend to agree with those who think these kinds of athlete interview comments are nothing that needs repeatedly objections.
Likewise, I see some of the repeated responses to you as trolling, which I wouldn't particularly respond to repeatedly (if I were you), because I don't see the value in such exchanges. Shit posting is easy enough to detect. But again, that's just me.
I wouldn't find it weird if it was common belief system. And, like it or not, these wrestler's belief systems are common. Very common. I had posted the following thoughts earlier, but you never responded to them.
People are atheists or agnostics have no personal "entity" to thank their success for. The equivalent would be like me thinking it weird for some agnostic champion to preach how great it is to be an American, to have athletic opportunities in such a great county with a system like ours. Then I get on a message board and constantly and incessantly rail about it. I would be the weirdo.
Yeah, your constant railing on it is a bit cringy, especially on a wrestling board. But them giving thanks this way and proclaiming what strengthens them is not weird. Spencer Lee gave great credit to Iowa Wrestling. That wasn't weird either, because it's been a common support system for dozens of wrestlers.
But you have the right to cringe at what you find cringy. And we can then find you cringy for finding cringe where few other see cringe.
You can't control what people say on an anonymous message board, so why get bothered? If he wasn't talking about a Penn State guy you wouldn't respond to him.
Beliefs that are widespread but not supported by any evidence are still weird to people who choose to live based on evidence. Especially when those beliefs are being pushed on to others.
It's a false equivalency to compare thanking the USA or thanking Iowa with thanking God. One can be proven to have contributed to success. It wouldn't be weird to thank your parents for their support through their time, money, care, DNA, etc. That makes sense as they've quite literally, indisputably contributed to your success.
I don't constantly rail against religion. I made two really short posts in the live reaction threads for the trials that the preaching is cringy, and that caused dozens of other posters to engage in a back and forth on the topic of religion. I didn't bring up religion out of the blue on a wrestling forum. The wrestlers brought it up out of the blue during the tournament.
It's quite frankly weird how many people are defensive about my take that saying "Jesus is returning soon" as an interview response to "how have you gotten better at wrestling " is really wild.
I think religious beliefs are a generally private matter. If you don't and choose to preach publicly, don't get offended when I comment that the preaching is cringy and inappropriate.
I think there's some value in the back and forth conversations on this now because from my perspective, it will hopefully make others more aware of how public preaching comes across to people who aren't bible thumpers.
Who is "bothered" by:
A) A wrestler publicly crediting God in an interview
B) A wrestler publicly crediting a support system exclusive of God
C) A wrestler publicly crediting no one but themself and their hard work
D) An anonymous message board poster who criticizes any of A) through C)
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
For the record, F) applies to me. I am not bothered in the least by any of it.
A) A wrestler publicly crediting God in an interview
B) A wrestler publicly crediting a support system exclusive of God
C) A wrestler publicly crediting no one but themself and their hard work
D) An anonymous message board poster who criticizes any of A) through C)
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
For the record, F) applies to me. I am not bothered in the least by any of it.
Seriously? I'm not the only one here responding and pretty many of those who are responding are Iowa fans. Maybe he derails the topic with his anti religion rants? Maybe you don't pay attention very well?
Derails the topic. 🙄 This is the live reaction thread from days ago and you're in here contributing to the "derailment"
Anyone engaging in the back and forth but crying about the fact that the back and forth is occurring is a hypocrite. I enjoy the discussion. If you don't, leave the thread, block me, or quit replying and the cycle ends.
To say they are not supported by any evidence seems like a little intellectual dishonesty. I think atheism is profoundly foolish, but for me to say it's not supported by any evidence would be just that, foolish.
But that's not the main point. SO WHAT you find it weird? Your incessant railing about something so common is weirder.
It's impossible to justly call it a false equivalency, because their religion has indisputably contributed to their success by at least potently assisting to their psychology of performing and training well. It's a fact.
Well, it appears you will constantly rail about it in this area. I imagine you're not going to deny you plainly indicated you would rail on it again and again if more wrestlers did it.
Anyway, continuing . . .
I'm not offended. It's expected. I don't have unrealistic expectations. The way to be disappointed is when expectations are not met. therefore, it's best to have realistic ones. It is my opinion there is something wrong with yours in this area. Change them. The vastly larger cringe is your cringe.
And with that I'm permanently done with this specific topic. By all means, have at it. Or take another swig of vodka. Whatever floats your boat. You're a valuable poster in plenty of other areas. It's ok. It's the nature of message boards.
Oh, there’s still cringe. When an athlete uses their platform to proselytize, it’s done under the belief that members of the audience are going to hell if they don’t repent, leave their current faith and join the speaker’s religion. That communicates a lack of respect for other’s religious beliefs, imo.
There is no scientifically proven evidence of either theism or atheism. That's just a fact. Stating the fact isn't intellectually dishonest.
Yet the default cultural expectation in the U.S. is that those beliefs are tolerated and criticism of those beliefs are unacceptable.
See 17:10 mark.
And more at the 25:00 mark.
I found this interesting, Coach Dan Gable speaks to the role the book "The heart of a champion" played in his formative life. It is written by a Minister, Bob Richards. He bought the book when Bob Richards visited Waterloo HS sometime before his sister's murder.
Dan speaks to the importance of living one's life the right way, the Christian way, and it's role in making him the athlete he came to be amidst the trials and tribulations of his sister's murder.
Again, dependent arising, causes and conditions. Completely understandable.
Last edited:
Moving the goalpost? Reread your original statement. You've moved to "no scientifically proven evidence" from the original "not supported by any evidence." Regardless, I don't agree with either statement. I would like to say there is a big difference between claiming something has some evidence for it, and something being proven. I understand the limitations.
And though I feel this is my fun wheelhouse, I'm not getting any deeper into this topic either on a wrestling board.
Last edited:
Their belief? Disconcerting for you to believe such an intent. I would need to read an accurate quote to that effect. Even Aaron Brooks my God is stronger for me than yours is for you (paraphrased) didn't go that far.
I do not believe that is their intent, to invoke some fear of hell. I believe they are testifying what gives themselves strength, like others have said.
Again, I can easily discount and disregard their beliefs, especially if they conveyed such a fear mongering intent.
Didn’t see where he even took a visit to PSU. So he’s going to follow the crowd and go to one of the 2 schools who have landed the best recruits the last 5 years or so. Has more opportunity at 125 at tOSU if he can make and hold that weight
I see him at 133, which we need badly. It would be nice if we got the best on available.
This x 100. I roll my eyes when the God talk goes beyond the basic but at the end of the day it's their moment and they see it as a positive thing so whatever. Anyone who needs to cry about it online each and every time has some personal issues to sort out.
As the story goes, when asked if God exists, the Buddha declined to engage such contemplation as a complete waste of time.
So yes, the existence of a God (theism) isn't a viable scientific endeavor.
That said, others speak to some personal strength that their faith gives them. My mother was this way, God rest her soul.
And so I submit to even the most cynical, the placebo effect has been scientifically proven.
So if it helps tolerate interviews, choose to look at their faith as nothing more than a placebo effect.
As the story goes, when asked if God exists, the Buddha declined to engage such contemplation as a complete waste of time.
So yes, the existence of a God (theism) isn't a viable scientific endeavor.
That said, others speak to some personal strength that their faith gives them. My mother was this way, God rest her soul.
And so I submit to even the most cynical, the placebo effect has been scientifically proven.
So if it helps tolerate interviews, choose to look at their faith as nothing more than a placebo effect.
I stated initially that they use religion as a proxy for sports psychology. Undoubtedly has benefit in terms of mental strength and determination.
The "fun" cult era was also a form of sports psychology.
I mock both. I wouldn't mock either but when it's repeated ad nauseum it becomes cult like and over the top weird.
I don't have an issue "tolerating" the interviews. I laugh and roll my eyes and comment that I find it cringe. You should maybe direct your guidance to the ~20ish people who've replied taking issue with my comments. There's very little tolerance for the criticism of preaching.
I can discount and disregard as well. But when laws start getting passed leading out great country toward s theocracy, I’m drawing the line in the sand.
Do you deny that Christian dogma revolves around proselytizing non-believers on the the general principle that those not embracing Christianity are doomed to eternity in hell?
I think maybe we can partially thank Gable's testimonials to "the heart of a champion" for what we hear in wrestler interviews.
If not impractical, it's inefficient and possible ineffective for me to @ 20 names. They can read this thread without it... at least those who don't have me on ignore. And what would I add to your near immediate responses to each?
I try not to mock. And I try not to judge. So you and some of the 20 others seem different than me in this way.
Yes, I deny the proselytizing part.
I was recruited by "The Navigators" while in college. This wasn't their way. I went to a few Bible studies. My uncle was a Roman Catholic priest. His last parish was in Aurora, Illinois (@AuroraHawk ?)
When one day I asked at a bible study, "How could a remote totally isolated tribesman in the Amazon have learned of Jesus Christ to be saved, or would he be damned to hell fire?" I was told, "The Lord reveals himself in all things."
I then asked, "What about all those who were born and died before the time of Jesus Christ? How could they know Him to accept Him as their one and only Savior?"
Needless to say, I wasn't satisfied and that was the last Bible Study I went to.
Last edited:
Jesus told his followers to pray in private. Possibly in a closet. That’s a far cry from giving thanks and praise on a public platform, imo.
Did you actually read what you just wrote???
Why shouldn't those beliefs be tolerated? They have a 1st amendment right to those beliefs and to espouse them at will.
The reason criticism of those beliefs is unacceptable is in the first sentence. They have a 1st amendment right to those beliefs, so when you criticize those beliefs, you are saying they have less rights than you. They don't have less rights than you so get over yourself.
Nothing about you tells me that you are worthy to be in judgment of others. Neither am I.
Cry harder Vodka. Maybe they'll outlaw God talk in public, then your butt will finally heal.
not if Uncle Carmine (AJ uncle) gets ahold of his butt.
Wrong. Terrible display of reading comprehension and understanding of the first amendment. I have never argued against anyone's first amendment right. I've utilized my first amendment right to mock and criticize their public preaching of religion.
If you think the first amendment right means that religion can't be criticized or ridiculed you're beyond reasoning.
As a matter of practicality, He might not want them to be crucified upside down by the Romans.
That’s not the reasons given. Maybe implied?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty
- Latest: swagsurfer02
-
-
-