Bigirimana Interview

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bigi. Ba. Shola and Sammy.

We have a few contenders for nicest guy in the Premiership. All of them are deeply religious. Almost makes you think religion might be a good thing some times
 
I love the fact we have so many religious players keeps them out of the pubs and clubs and out of the newspapers. Maybe Mr Ranger should turn to Jesus
 
Raheem Sterling, Andros Townsend and Nick Powell have all been handed their maiden England Under-21 call-ups.



Anyone know if Bigi has declared his international allegiance ?
 
Freddd said:
Raheem Sterling, Andros Townsend and Nick Powell have all been handed their maiden England Under-21 call-ups.



Anyone know if Bigi has declared his international allegiance ?
Click to expand...

Last I read was that he hadn't as he is/was torn between picking England and somewhere else. Possibly Uganda, but I really can't remember.

Edit: Burundi was the other choice. http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/uk-news-world/2012/09/11/gael-bigirimana-facing-up-to-a-major-decision-61634-31807689/
 
Great to see a young man who is truly appreciative of what he has and remains grounded by his faith. The complete opposite of Nile Ranger who would do well to take a leaf or two from this young mans book.
It shows great self confidence for someone so young to stand up and declare his love of God these days, as it seems more fashionable to "wanna be a gangster" with all the bling and birds.
We have quite a few players in our squad who practice their faith and when you think of who those players are, you have to say they appear more humble and less likely to have their heads turned by bright lights and the trappings of fame than some of their peers.
Overall, it can only be good for them and our club.
 
Seems like a grounded young lad. Each to their own in terms of religion, its a crock of ****e for me personally but hey ho. I don't its his faith that keeps him grounded though, its him being a decent individual.

But he is not pushing it either like some. "My ability is god given, I thank and praise the lord" etc and all that preacher type bullshit you get from some (particularly American sportstars).

We have plenty who believe in various gods, and while I find the whole subject of god a bit laughable given what we know in terms of science, I have no problem with anyone who chooses religion. As long as they are professional and do their best for the club, I couldn't care whether they are religious or not. This lad seems a nice fella and he's a dynamite prospect to boot.
 
Warm Pouch said:
Seems like a grounded young lad. Each to their own in terms of religion, its a crock of ****e for me personally but hey ho. I don't its his faith that keeps him grounded though, its him being a decent individual.

But he is not pushing it either like some. "My ability is god given, I thank and praise the lord" etc and all that preacher type bullshit you get from some (particularly American sportstars).

We have plenty who believe in various gods, and while I find the whole subject of god a bit laughable given what we know in terms of science, I have no problem with anyone who chooses religion. As long as they are professional and do their best for the club, I couldn't care whether they are religious or not. This lad seems a nice fella and he's a dynamite prospect to boot.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't in any way undermine the basis for believing in God. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science, or even give a hint one way or the other.

You can of course prove that the muchof the contents of the Bible and many other holy books cannot be literally accurate but that is another thing entirely.
 
Freddd said:
Science doesn't in any way undermine the basis for believing in God. It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God through science, or even give a hint one way or the other.

You can of course prove that the muchof the contents of the Bible and many other holy books cannot be literally accurate but that is another thing entirely.
Click to expand...

Not getting into this. Lets just say I disagree! Whereas I wouldn't say it makes religion obselete, I would say it certainly does undermine the very cornerstones on which religions are built. However I've done this debate several times and it just becomes never ending!
 
Warm Pouch said:
Not getting into this. Lets just say I disagree!
Click to expand...

I'm not at all religious incidentally. I still remember the moment when I realised that grown up people who no longer beleived in Santa Claus still belived in God, and also still remember my intense surprise.

It's just that I think it is impossilbe to prove the existence or non-existence of something which is said to exist outside of the physical universe by a close examination of the physical universe.
 
Freddd said:
I'm not at all religious incidentally. I still remember the moment when I realised that grown up people who no longer beleived in Santa Claus still belived in God, and also still remember my intense surprise.

It's just that I think it is impossilbe to prove the existence or non-existence of something which is said to exist outside of the physical universe by a close examination of the physical universe.
Click to expand...

Victor J Stenger's musings made my mind up about it. I know what you mean but the whole idea of a "creator" is farical when you look at the complexity of the known physical universe alone.
 
Warm Pouch said:
Victor J Stenger's musings made my mind up about it. I know what you mean but the whole idea of a "creator" is farical when you look at the complexity of the known physical universe alone.
Click to expand...

Hmm, don't find that particualry convincing. If you are willing to suppose that God exists, I don't see any reason to think that he would be insufficiently sophisticated to create all the complexities of the universe. If you are going to propose the existence of a being for whom no evidence exists, I don't see why you need to place any limits on his attributes.

Also, in fairness, it is worthwhile remembering that our current scientific view of the universe is as limited with respect to explaining the existence of the universe as is the religious viewpoint.

The scientific theory is that there was a Big Bang and everything followed more or less explicably from there. Ask any physicist why there was a Big Bang and his answer boil down to "It just happened."

The religious theory is that God existed and made certain decisions and that everything follows more or less explicably from there. Ask how or why God exists and the answer is that "He just does."

Both limited theories at the end of the day. The scientific one has the advantage of greateer predicitive power, but only, of course, until God chooses to intervene. Teh religiuous one caters for God's intervention but does so on the most dubious of bases.
 
Freddd said:
Hmm, don't find that particualry convincing. If you are willing to suppose that God exists, I don't see any reason to think that he would be insufficiently sophisticated to create all the complexities of the universe. If you are going to propose the existence of a being for whom no evidence exists, I don't see why you need to place any limits on his attributes.

Also, in fairness, it is worthwhile remembering that our current scientific view of the universe is as limited with respect to explaining the existence of the universe as is the religious viewpoint.

The scientific theory is that there was a Big Bang and everything followed more or less explicably from there. Ask any physicist why there was a Big Bang and his answer boil down to "It just happened."

The religious theory is that God existed and made certain decisions and that everything follows more or less explicably from there. Ask how or why God exists and the answer is that "He just does."

Both limited theories at the end of the day. The scientific one has the advantage of greateer predicitive power, but only, of course, until God chooses to intervene. Teh religiuous one caters for God's intervention but does so on the most dubious of bases.
Click to expand...

That's why I say it does not make it obselete though, I just feel it does undermine it. The theory of how the universe was created is certainly not something that we can definitively say is correct (indeed it is highly unlikely despite all of equations and science behind it that we are correct - I just think they are probably at least in the right ballpark) We are basically working with a lot of unknowns. I simply think what we do know scientifically, seriously undermines the supposed existence of some greater being. It is possible but based on what we have an understanding of, its seriously unlikely. With science its based on many unknowns as you say, but there is a hell of a lot going on in the physical world which we do understand, and which helps us form a more rational opinion. I do not think it is possible to say "God does not exist" and prove it.

The teachings of religion are just a non starter. Regilious groups have tried to move the goalposts so many times over the years to justify their accuracy. Its a load of bollocks which has been smashed to pieces by science. I find it difficult to seperate the teachings from the possiblity of Gods existence. The possibility of his existence came about through the teachings. Therefore because the teachings are beyond flawed, Gods very existence is highly dubious!

I have no problem with religion by the way, each to their own. I see religious teachings as our attempts to bring order where there was chaos, and basically a primitive human attempt to explain the age old problem of how we came to be.

You see what you've done, you've dragged me onto this again!
 
Warm Pouch said:
That's why I say it does not make it obselete though, I just feel it does undermine it. The theory of how the universe was created is certainly not something that we can definitively say is correct (indeed it is highly unlikely despite all of equations and science behind it that we are correct - I just think they are probably at least in the right ballpark) We are basically working with a lot of unknowns. I simply think what we do know scientifically, seriously undermines the supposed existence of some greater being. It is possible but based on what we have an understanding of, its seriously unlikely. With science its based on many unknowns as you say, but there is a hell of a lot going on in the physical world which we do understand, and which helps us form a more rational opinion. I do not think it is possible to say "God does not exist" and prove it.

The teachings of religion are just a non starter. Regilious groups have tried to move the goalposts so many times over the years to justify their accuracy. Its a load of bollocks which has been smashed to pieces by science. I find it difficult to seperate the teachings from the possiblity of Gods existence. The possibility of his existence came about through the teachings. Therefore because the teachings are beyond flawed, Gods very existence is highly dubious!

I have no problem with religion by the way, each to their own. I see religious teachings as our attempts to bring order where there was chaos, and basically a primitive human attempt to explain the age old problem of how we came to be.

You see what you've done, you've dragged me onto this again!
Click to expand...

Ah, but you do it quite well.

Essentially:

a. our only basis for beleiving in God is the contents of certain holy books (some would disagree with this);

b. we can show that, where they deal with the physical universe, the contents of those books is not remotely literally accurate;

c. while supernatural matters are by their nature incapable of proof, the fact that the holy books are inaccurate when they deal with matters that can be checked makes them of very doubtful relaibility with respect to matters upon which they cannot be checked;

d. belief in God accordingly not only requires a willingness to beleive in that of which there is an absnece of evidence, but to place reliance on sources known to be unreliable.
 
have you ever considered that science is moving towards a 'great being' of sorts with the fundamental particles and energies at the quantum level or the basic physical forces at a macro level - that the quest to find a unified theory of everything or single universal force can easily be looked at as a quest to find God ? Not God as a creator but God as a universal existence.
 
We are already down to a pretty simple set of values (quantity of gravity, number of spatial dimensions, atomic binding force, rate of expansion, quantity of dark matter and cosmic resonance) that are finely tuned to create our universe - unbalance one of these and you end up with unworkable results such as one huge black hole or everything as hydrogen atoms - could it not be argued that the tuning of those numbers is evidence, not of a God in the crude imagined anthropocentric sense, but of a deciding essence that created everything ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back