The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Precisely the first thought that popped into my head.Or he is hoping to shaft Celtic again and join the Saudi gravy train once Gerrard is sacked?
Surprised Rodgers holds that view given his affinity for the trans community'Morality officers' judging Henderson - Rodgers
Brendan Rodgers defends Jordan Henderson amid criticism from "morality officers" over the midfielder's move to Saudi Arabia.www.bbc.co.uk
"morality officer" is truly a special choice of words given how Saudi literally has morality police.'Morality officers' judging Henderson - Rodgers
Brendan Rodgers defends Jordan Henderson amid criticism from "morality officers" over the midfielder's move to Saudi Arabia.www.bbc.co.uk
Oh my fucking god, I cannot put into words how much I despise that shark faced twatSurprised Rodgers holds that view given his affinity for the trans community
100% This country asks higher standards in public life of its soccer players than anyone else. Higher certainly than its members of Parliament. Ridiculous.To me whilst Henderson comes off, terribly, it's also hilarious watching him being held to a higher standard than the head of state.
EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE: King set to entertain Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince
EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE: Recollections are dimming of any connection between Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince and the 2018 dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.www.dailymail.co.uk
Rodgers will have a plan b in place for sure. Celtic probably deserve to get an ass reaming for taking him back.Or he is hoping to shaft Celtic again and join the Saudi gravy train once Gerrard is sacked?
You could argue that the traditional theistic conception of god is inconsistent or logically impossible.
Whether you believe that is another matter.
"morality officer" is truly a special choice of words given how Saudi literally has morality police.
People actually wanted him here, apparently he was the only one who could handle managing in the premier league.Oh my fucking god, I cannot put into words how much I despise that shark faced twat
Maybe, I don't really know. I guess I'll just give my thoughts on this since it isn't really derailing the thread anymore. I'm not actually that interested in debating this stuff because no one really changes their mind anyway but here it goes.The nature or make up of the Creator being is a different discussion. The existence of a first cause however makes much more sense imo than claiming a universe from nothing, an infinite regress or other theory atheists put forward.
Remind me, when was the last time someone was executed in public in the US for being an atheist or a gay man?And therein lies the great hypocrisy in all this.
If you actually care about human rights, the footballing world SHOULD turn on Messi.
The US has violated numerous rights around the world for the last two decades. Invading countries, killing civilians, setting up a worldwide torture program etc.
Why are they any better than Saudi? Who has more blood on their hands? We all know the next world cup in the US will have none of the controversy that Qatar had either.
And before someone starts, I csnt stand MBS or his murderous regime so this isn't about supporting him. It's pointing out the rank hypocrisy
Let me see..Remind me, when was the last time someone was executed in public in the US for being an atheist or a gay man?
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy and false equivalence, if, as non-Muslim people, we were told that we had to choose between living out their lives in either Saudi Arabia or America, how many would opt for the former?
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy and false equivalence, if, as non-Muslim people, we were told that we had to choose between living out their lives in either Saudi Arabia or America, how many would opt for the former?
Why doesn't he give his £DISGUSTINGLY OBSCENE AMOUNT per week to the local Womens charity, by way of proving he's not there for the money, and doesn't agree with the anti women's regime of the country who's paying him...
Nah, thought not!
Enjoy your wealth you dog toothed fucker!
Maybe, I don't really know. I guess I'll just give my thoughts on this since it isn't really derailing the thread anymore. I'm not actually that interested in debating this stuff because no one really changes their mind anyway but here it goes.
I take it you're referring to the Kalam cosmological argument when you say 'first cause'. My issues with the argument is it's use of the term 'begins to exist'. To me this refers to creatio ex nihilo. However, we haven't actually seen anything that has been created out of nothing. Everything we observe has been created out of some pre existing materials, or creatio ex materia. And the point of the first premise is to appeal to our previously existing knowledge of the world and how things come into existence within it.
So there seems to be a case of equivocation here, the first premise talks about things coming into existence as we know it, out of already existing materials. But the second premise is talking about the universe, and there were no previously existing materials prior to the universe existing. So the two premises are talking about two very different notions of coming into existence.
Although I don't know where you stand on this. IIRC, the Islamic position is that the universe was created out of nothing. However, I did hear that Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the universe was created out of previously existing matter.
Which brings me to another point, I don't see how if the universe can't come from nothing, that God is able to create the universe out of nothing. It seems like the same dilemma still exists. Both sides can't explain how something could come out of nothing.
Maybe, I don't really know. I guess I'll just give my thoughts on this since it isn't really derailing the thread anymore. I'm not actually that interested in debating this stuff because no one really changes their mind anyway but here it goes.
I take it you're referring to the Kalam cosmological argument when you say 'first cause'. My issues with the argument is it's use of the term 'begins to exist'. To me this refers to creatio ex nihilo. However, we haven't actually seen anything that has been created out of nothing. Everything we observe has been created out of some pre existing materials, or creatio ex materia. And the point of the first premise is to appeal to our previously existing knowledge of the world and how things come into existence within it.
So there seems to be a case of equivocation here, the first premise talks about things coming into existence as we know it, out of already existing materials. But the second premise is talking about the universe, and there were no previously existing materials prior to the universe existing. So the two premises are talking about two very different notions of coming into existence.
Although I don't know where you stand on this. IIRC, the Islamic position is that the universe was created out of nothing. However, I did hear that Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the universe was created out of previously existing matter.
Which brings me to another point, I don't see how if the universe can't come from nothing, that God is able to create the universe out of nothing. It seems like the same dilemma still exists. Both sides can't explain how something could come out of nothing.
Remind me, when was the last time someone was executed in public in the US for being an atheist or a gay man?
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy and false equivalence, if, as non-Muslim people, we were told that we had to choose between living out their lives in either Saudi Arabia or America, how many would opt for the former?
Are y'all for real tallying up the historical crimes of various regimes sat at your computers in the United Fucking Kingdom?We can all play that game. Like my post said, I detest MBS and his regime so my point was the hypocrisy, not a defense of his regime. But someone can say when's the last time Saudi invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and carried out a drone warfare program that killed mainly civilians etc.
Are gay people the only victims you care about? Because I mentioned countless victims of violence from a violent country, I mentioned an organised torture regime carried out by that country - but you ignored those victims. Are some victims more important than others? How do you differentiate?
I'm against Saudi and the US actions and will be explicit on both.
As for your second paragraph, how does that question negate all humans rights abuses that the US has committed around the world? It doesn't. People can chose to live where they want, that doesn't change the reality of what we have seen the US do over the last two decades.
Are y'all for real tallying up the historical crimes of various regimes sat at your computers in the United Fucking Kingdom?