Boxing Disproves Gods Again? Loma and KT wore Christian Bible T-shirts on Fight Week?

[tritium_arma]

What about fake Muslim, never doing Ramadan Haney? He won. Or actual practicing Muslim Beterbiev. Tyson Fury always talks about god as well and thanks his savior. Uysk is also wears a cross.

[FlatLine]

The divergent decisions of Vasiliy Lomachenko and Katie Taylor to wear Christian t-shirts and Devin Haney to recite the Takbir to begin their respective bouts begs the question of whether their choices exerted a direct influence on the outcome, whether in a positive or negative way.

Obviously, the other possibility being that their actions had no influence on the outcome at all.

The whole post was an interesting read. To your first point, I'd wager that this the most appropriate conclusion to reach. Their actions had no influence on the outcome at all, thereby rendering their gods non-existent or, for arguments sake, at the very least non-interventional.

Others May similarly question whether or not their intent was for their choice of attire to influence the outcome, or if perhaps the reasons for the actions taken in question had a different personal meaning to them entirely.

Although context appears to have traditionally overridden any determinism of win or loss, one cannot completely overlook the potential sway of their individual choices and their respective determinants.

Thus, if these decisions to don clothing and recite prayers did occur in a variant temporal or spatial layer, did these occurrences then lead to a different outcome?

It is difficult to fathom any connection or intricacies of how one's spiritual pursuits from choirs, to t-shirts, or prayers may be precursors to a victory, or even a portent of defeat, in a physical altercation.

Nevertheless, as observers, we can surely draw our own conclusions on influence.

For instance, would a prayer both energize and calm a contender, or would wearing a certain garment embolden their psyche?

Fair observation but it's far more likely to demonstrate the intricate workings of the mind, rather than reveal any external influential force. Prayer is comparable to meditation and brain scans show the same areas of the brain are activated during both activities. By performing a particular meditation, without appealing to any particular deity, one could generate comparable psychological effects, whether that be to calm the mind or embolden it.

By extension, it could be said that prayer is just a form of meditation which includes a fantasy deity character in the narrative. So while a regular meditation might, for example, direct the mind to imagine relaxing on a beach, with the prayer meditation there is a presumed facet embedded into the meditation - namely the imaginary god characters, or some kind of supernatural foundation. The meditation then begins from that underlying fantastical foundation. Yet it's still a meditation, just one with a godly presumption interwoven into the meditative narrative.

Perhaps it is myopic to assume a casual connection between decisions across different layers, whether spatial or chronological in nature, and assume them to have played the determining role in the eventual result.

Conversely, perhaps it is simply impossible to mitigate the specificity of fighters and their chosen strategies as well as decision to emphasize faith or culture before pugilism.

For instance, is it not possible that our reality is just one of the planets within a vast multi-dimensional universe?

Could there be a reality where things that do not exist in our three-dimensional environment exist?

These questions of what is possible remain tantalizing and difficult to answer.

A demonstration of the possibility of Layered Realities would be difficult to accomplish given the lack of any such instruments capable of measuring them.

Our knowledge about the nature of reality is based solely on our own observations.

Layered Realities could raise implications for how reality is constructed and how we experience it.

It could provide a different understanding of how reality works and the implications of such a reality.

It could offer different ways of perceiving the universe as a whole and could open the door for a different kind of exploration and understanding of our world.

In addition, the implications of Layered Realities could extend far beyond our comprehension.

For instance, could the existence of Layered Realities make it possible to access and explore different dimensions, planes, stars or galaxies?

Despite the profound implications of the possibility of Layered Realities, it is difficult to conduct a demonstration to prove its existence.

Any demonstration of Layered Realities would have to be conducted with the utmost rigor and accuracy as the implications of the concept, should it exist, are profound.

We may never know whether or not Layered Realities truly exist. But, without doubt, the possibility of such a reality is captivating and would be an incredible and potentially rewarding discovery.

Multi-dimensional theories have been around for several thousands of years. The earliest reference I know of was the Vedas in Hinduism. Since then, there hasn't really been any concrete evidence of any spatial dimension beyond the 3rd. Some say the 4th dimension is space-time but that's not really a spatial dimension on it's own as it incorporates the 3 dimensions + time, to portray a 4th dimension. Others argue that quantum physics is a glimpse in to other dimensions as quarks and gluons seem to disappear and reappear at random intervals. Although the overriding theory is that they don't disappear but transmute. It's an interesting field but as yet provides no concrete evidence of additional dimensions. So while I don't deny additional dimensions are possible, they are yet to be proven, And if they are proven, it's still a long road from there to magical omnipotent beings.

When we come to decisions about something as simple as what shirt to wear, it can be difficult to discern what factors come into play that determine which shirt we choose.

Is it something we consciously decide upon, or is there an intangible power at work that influences our decisions?

For instance, if I was to choose to wear the red shirt instead of the blue shirt, part of me wonders if I actually desired to make that selection, or was there a clandestine force existing outside my own reality that somewhat guided this choice?

What we need to remember is that humans are prone to psychological forces that can shape us more than we often realise - these imperceptible influences are both profound and mysterious.

Consequently, we can find ourselves questioning the idea that our choices and preferences are solely our own, leaving us to ponder as to the power of some other outside force that can drive such shifts in behavior.

This is an interesting area of research but doesn't point towards deities, instead it informs us of the subliminal programming that our brains can encounter through simply perceiving the world. Choosing the red shirt may have simply been influenced by seeing the flash of a red rose in the garden or some other visual display of red from some undetermined visual cue. Choosing the blue shirt was perhaps inspired by the blue sky seen out of the window.

There was an interesting documentary about this very thing where a 2 groups of people were tasked with devising an advertising campaign at an office location. Each person was driven, individually, by a cab to the office. The cab driver followed a very specific route, pausing at precise locations. At these locations were certain visual cues that were intended to leave some sort of lingering impression on the mind. A few hours after arriving at the office and completing the task of devising advertising posters, both groups of people had incorporated some of the very same visual cues that had been thrown at them on their journey into work. So the posters of both groups looked very similar because they had subliminally absorbed those visual cues in their journey into work

I was intrigued when I happened upon a discussion between two gentlemen, one of whom seemed to take a mysterious interest in interplanetary vapors.

He argued that although they do not look like us, these rapidly forming drops of gas and dust may actually be alive, if only for very brief moments in time.

He argued that just as we live in the midst of an energy-filled cosmos, so too must there be an unimaginable living world that exists all around us, far beyond our understanding.

His counterpart was of the opinion that this was pure speculation and that it more likely they were just some sort of phenomena that had yet to be explained by science.

To him, the idea that they could have come to be by some type of higher and spiritual force seemed far fetched and a little too hard to accept.

I couldn't help but try to find a reasonable answer to satisfy both of them while I listened to the conversation.

I came away knowing that the possibility that interplanetary vapors could actually be alive, if even for a few moments, can never be ruled out completely.

The interplanetary vapors idea to me seems comparable to the old belief that comets and meteorites seen flashing through the sky were at one time thought to be living beings. Some cultures believed them to be dragons or some other fantastical beasts waging war in the sky. Interplanetary vapors seems to be an extension of that archaic belief system with no evidence to support it. However life might survive in space in very simplistic form without the support of technology. There might even be asteroids hurtling through space which harbor life. Say if the Rings of Saturn, which contain asteroids, comets and gasses, harbor some form of microbial life, then someone might use that as an example of "interplanetary vapors being alive".

My own experience, when it comes to conversations with people of different belief systems, has taught me that often times, those who are passionate in defending their own views will be quick to assume the opposing opinions informing others views and intents are based merely on misguided principles, when in reality, many voices on both sides of any argument are informed by similar desires for truth, understanding, and some form of peaceful existence within the consciousness.

That's why many people I have met, be they atheists, theists, or agnostic, possess a tendency to rally behind whatever viewpoint seems to reinforce their personal conviction.

Many of the conversations surrounding religion, faith, and spirituality, become centered around trying to prove a point rather than having a genuine discussion about the issues.

This same kind of eagerness to support a given view can be seen in any discourse concerning political or social issues as well.

It would be safe to say that we all share the same human instinct to try to build a strong supporting framework around the things we love and the causes we uphold.

My late friend, whom I will simply call Van Hoyt, and the friendship that we shared for many years is a great reminder of the value of human conversation and debate.

He and I could often be found discussing religion, philosophy, and our personal life journeys -- while sipping Margaritas and sampling a variety of craft ales.

It was a revelatory experience, filled with honest conversations that challenged me to reexamine my beliefs in ways I hadn't fully considered before.

While Van Hoyt himself told me he viewed himself as an Agnostic Polytheist, he would engage me with provocative questions regarding my own views, saying things such as “What is the purpose of religion?” and “What is the value of living a spiritual life?”

We took turns challenging each other's beliefs, often sparking heated yet respectful debates.

He had an expansive knowledge of religious doctrine as well as secular philosophy, and the ability to draw meaningful connections between disparate teachings.

The memory of Van Hoyt and our conversations is still alive in my mind to this day.

While I never adopted his devotion to the God of Inebriation, I cherish the fact that his own beliefs inspired me to take a deeper look at my own.

Although I myself am a bit more traditional in my outlook than he was — not to mention the fact I prefer wine over beer — there will always be a special place in my heart for Van Hoyt, a unique individual who somehow managed to combine his passions for debate, and the fermented drink of choice of the Ancient Egyptians.

I agree with many of your final observations. And some thought-provoking discussions with Van Hoyt were held, no doubt. Seems like an interesting character too in his own right. My condolences on his passing.

This was one of the most interesting posts I've encountered on this website in over a decade of subscription. I too may crack open an Ancient Egyptian beverage later on, yet only a single one remains in my fridge, it's label Germanic and it's taste not as appealing as in younger days.

[Ghost Jab]

What about fake Muslim, never doing Ramadan Haney? He won. Or actual practicing Muslim Beterbiev. Tyson Fury always talks about god as well and thanks his savior. Uysk is also wears a cross.

I truly enjoyed my conversation with OP; he is both well-read and courteous, and I think it’s safe to say that we had a mutually enjoyable dialogue on the topic.

Our main point of contention was regarding the idea that a Christian boxer losing a match provides evidence for the non-existence of divine beings.

I had to disagree with his opinion on this, as I do not believe that a religious boxer's negative performance could provide evidence regarding the non-existence of God or other divine beings.

Moreover, I would not consider a religious boxer's victory to be good evidence for divine beings, either.

When it comes to personal faith, it is true that there are boxers who are convinced of the existence of a Higher Power, and that devotion has seemingly exerted some influence the course of their life and inner psyche. One may argue as to the reasons for this. A theist may ascribe a theological reason, whereas an atheist may ascribe a psychological reason.

Regardless of the reason, it is also helpful to note that those who grow in faith solely for the purpose of gaining advantage in academic, financial, or athletic fields do not have a faith that extends very deeply.

Such a creed will be just as shallow as its motivations.

Without an adherence that extends deeper than a mere desire for success, such a religious commitment is likely to be short-lived.

For you my secular friends, one might substitute a preferred philosophical view for the word religion, to better understand what I am saying.

One might refer to this as “paying lip-service” to a specific theological or philosophical view of choice.

With regard to the boxers in question, it is difficult to say how deeply their beliefs are held and what effects they have on their day-to-day lives without knowing them well personally.

But in conclusion, it is my opinion that whether their beliefs are deeply-held or perhaps more surface-based, one cannot infer too much from their successes (or lack thereof) about the structure of the vast cosmos, or the various questions people have been asking about the meaning of existence since the dawn of recorded history.

Finally, I am of the opinion that it is tempting, and often far too prevalent, for individuals regardless of their views, to quickly latch on to a perceived example or statistic in order to support their strongly held view.

This could be seen in regards to the argument that a religious boxer’s loss confirms the non-existence of divine beings.

However, if a religious person would cite Haney’s win (or Fury or Usyk’s wins) as incontrovertible evidence of the existence of divine beings, the argument would be no better in quality than its counterpart.

Such an assertion, either which way, assumes the constance of far too many variables.

In my opinion, there are many well-crafted arguments both from atheistic thinkers and from
theistic thinkers; however, none of them involve a boxer’s win-loss column.

[Andrew_red]

It looks like Loma belongs to a wrong church

[Ghost Jab]

Thank you very much, Flatline, for your kind words and your condolences.

You seem like a likable and intelligent person.

Although I do not think we see eye to eye on several things, namely, if a lack of intervention on behalf of a religious boxer is evidence that no divine beings exist, I do think that you craft all of your arguments very well. Moreover, it is my view that there are a lot of things which you and I share in common; particularly, a desire for knowledge and an appreciation for logic and reason.

I especially liked your appeal to Occam’s Razor regarding choice of attire, as I have always been intrigued by that argument as well as by various counter-arguments.

It is my hope that if ever we were to meet in person, it would be at the Table of Friendship.

I would gladly pay for the intoxicant beverage of your choice, and we could discuss this and many other topics as well.

Once again, thank you for your kind words, and for the friendly debate. It was much appreciated.

Take care on your journey, Friend.

[buddyr]

Islam worsips God. Christianity worships God. Judaism worships God. Islam don't believe Jesus was a deity and Judaism don't believe in him at all.I believe in nothing, but I respect what anyone else chooses as their religion.