Well, he almost certainly will as I don't see him losing to Serra, and GSP will be the #1 contender. Expect that match earlier next year!
The question isn't whether the belief is correct, it's whether holding that belief suggests you're uneducated or stupid. It doesn't. Since you do not want to carry on the discussion, I will leave it at that.
I know I will. They are opposite ends of the 'why some Americans are annoying' spectrum. Serra is a loudmouth, classless and brash dumbass and Hughes is a self righteous, broom-stick-up-the-ass, hillbilly ass hole. Together they cover all the American stereotypes that annoy the **** out of everyone else in the world. This is not attack on USA by the way, just those two pricks and the minority that they seem to embody. It would be the same if in the UK a football hooligan was matched up against a chinless upper class aristocrat, if that makes sense???:nut
"Football is a gentleman's game played by barbarians, and Rugby is a barbarian's game played by gentlemen". So I presume that these two hypothetical people are being matched in some ball-related sport.
1) Very few children believe in the Easter bunny. 2) They're young children, not fully functioning adults. 3) Among those children, you won't find a correlation between intelligence and belief in the Easter Bunny anyway. There's a difference between not believing in religion and considering religious people as uneducated gullible idiots. The latter is a naive generalization. But if you do not wish to continue the discussion, that's fine.
No. I said football hooligan, not player. Hooligans don't play football they pretend to follow it. True upper class people would never play rugby, they'd own the pitch upon which it was played and kill a fox instead. Rugby is a middle class thing. I fail to see the relevance of your post, and am struggling to nail down your viewpoint.
You're wrong. By definition holding belief in religion requires faith. Faith is when one forms an opinion that is impossible to prove/disprove by using fact and logic, rather they just 'believe'. When one believes in something that niether logic or fact confirms one is neglecting informed/ educated reasoning and therefore is displaying both uneducated and stupid qualities. Religion is the most primitive solution to the most complex question and should never be seen as anything more than the antiquated ramblings of a lesser informed era that zealots have insisted on carrying forward to the present day for the monetary gain of their prospective organisations.
I dont watch the show but what Im getting at is, Matt told them they dont have to read it, so when one guy says he doesn't want to, you yell at matt for just getting him to read it. If Mac said Matt I just dont want to read it a 2nd time I bet would of said Okay Thats fine, Matt did nothing wrong by trying once to tell him, its a good story that he should read.
What cracked me up was Serra asking "what if there was a Jewish guy on the team?" Well, I don't think they'd have a problem with the book of Ester since its part of their holy book. The whole thing was weird, but some of the guys enjoyed it if for nothing more than it was at least reading material, which normally is banned.
No, you're wrong! So there! Let me cut through the red tape with a simple example. Me. I am a Christian. I am also aware that my viewpoint is not provable with logic. I am aware of all of the arguments for and against, and I am capable of comprehending them. I am perfectly conscious of the fact that my beliefs are irrational--and in fact, I would be capable of creating an extremely convincing logical "refutation" of religion. It doesn't take that much brain power or knowledge, really--the Sophists were doing it 2600 years ago. Most will agree that I am neither stupid nor uneducated. And most will also agree that there are many other Christians who are more intelligent than I am and more educated than I am. So getting back to my original point, stereotyping six billion people on the basis of one variable is rather naive. And it's no coincidence that there aren't many social scientists doing it. Most religious people do not profit financially from their faith, yet continue to practice and preach it.
There wasn't really any relevance to my "rugby" post. I'm just goofing around. As to Rugby--my knowledge of it comes from "ye olden tymes" when it was used to help shape the British Imperial administrators. I gather it has fallen out of favor with the upper classes since then?
