Matthew Le God

As I said in the other thread (as these two threads are pretty much on the same course at the moment... - MLT is the King on the pitch and Lawrie the king of the dugout for Saints. - But concerning actions off the pitch, Cortese is far more impressive and professional. As Saint Clark pointed out, all the actions Cortese gets abused for can be easily countered (although many of his critics ignore the rebuttals like those Saint Clark listed). MLT and Lawrie however seem to be able to say what they like in the eyes of some. Yes, Le Tiss is one of the greatest players ever to play for the club and Lawrie probably the best manager, but they shouldn't open their mouths in public about Cortese and then expect Cortese to do them any favours.

- MLT is indeed the King on the pitch and Lawrie the king of the dugout for Saints. - But concerning actions off the pitch, Cortese is far more impressive and professional. As Saint Clark pointed out, all the actions Cortese gets abused for can be easily countered (although many of his critics ignore the rebuttals like those Saint Clark listed). MLT and Lawrie however seem to be able to say what they like in the eyes of some. Yes, Le Tiss is one of the greatest players ever to play for the club and Lawrie probably the best manager, but they shouldn't open their mouths in public about Cortese and then expect Cortese to do them any favours.

The club have shown plenty of respect to history, see post #11.

It isn't hate. Lawrie Mac, for all the great stuff he did as manager, it doesn't infallible now. He continues to make unfounded and unsubstantiated claims in the local and national press, it shouldn't then surprise him if those he makes it against don't do him any favours, they are under no obligation.

"Us" and "Them", pathetic. Sweeping generalisations...

Yes, they were great as player and manager respectively, but that doesn't make them infallible since retirement. The have said a lot of unsubstantiated things in the local and national press in the last 18 months and Cortese is under no obligation to do them any favours.

How has he shown lack of respect for the clubs history? We are wearing an anniversary shirt, recently had a number of former players on the pitch at half time and the club held official events in November 2010 - the actual time of the anniversary! The event yesterday was unofficial, 3 months late and some of those involved have been slagging him off in the press for months. He owes them nothing and certainly can't blame him for not doing them any favours.

Did the BBC program make any mention of the 18 months worth of unsubstantiated sniping in the local and national press those involved with the dinner have been doing? Cortese owes them no favours after that! Or that the anniversary was actually in November 2010 and official events took place then and yesterdays event was three months late and unofficial? Plus where does the money for this event go? Are they just cashing in on the club? I doubt it...

This is why Saints are doing it now, so that Staplewood is ready by 2012/13... "The Premier League want to grade all academies and insists the EPPP will boost the standard of elite of homegrown players but admit no clubs would currently meet the requirements to satisfy a Category One academy. The vision is to introduce the proposals by the start of the 2012/13 season giving clubs 18 months to build their infrastructure and employ more qualified coaches." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1356951/Football-League-fury-Premier-Leagues-academy-plans.html#ixzz1DycCjHkn

On what do you base that claim? A gut feeling? Or something a bit more substantial than that? Do you not think it is creepy that people are forced into acting under the pretence of being seemingly good towards others to cover up their true intentions of gaining favour from God? These people aren't acting unselfishly at all, it is all a facade to get a good spot in heaven and not actually for the purpose to help another human. Who is more likely to mutilate the genitals of their innocent children against their will. An atheist or a person of religious beliefs?

Answer the final point then. Why do you think someone of no religion wouldn't return the money? I'm not religious and I would return it (and have on many occasions returned things in similar circumstances) even though I have nothing obvious to gain personally from doing so. What you do gain in the long run from seemingly selfless acts such as these is a stable society which is good for the survival of the species and continuation of genes. Do you not think if there is a God he wouldn't see that you were only doing it for your own benefit to gain favour with him?

No answer to the question in post #123 then?

Why has this turned into a golf thread? Surely we have enough Pompey material to keep us occupied for years don't we?

Which is better... Person A returning you the tenner because they wanted to and were being unselfish? or Person B only returning the tenner because they are fearful of punishment from God or wanting reward from him for doing so? It is Person A for me every time, as Person B isn't acting genuinely and is only doing it because they want to gain favour from God. In any case, surely God is aware they were only doing it to gain favour and makes the whole exercise pointless as if there was a God he would know it wasn't a truly selfless act but instead one to impress him for your own benefit. Thus the atheist that returns the money has the true moral high ground (I also don't understand why you think someone of no religion wouldn't return the money).

What a bizarre argument! It completely depends on the person in question. An evil person will do evil things, a good person will do good things BUT it takes religion to make a "good person" do evil things. Such as... Are you more likely to have your genitals mutilated against your will when you are a child by a parent that is religious or a parent that is an atheist? Are you more likely to go to war and kill thousands of people because a bronze age scripture from a man in the clouds tells you to if you are religious or an atheist? etc etc

You can add to that list... - Genital mutilation of innocent young children against their will, just because of what bronze age myth their parents happen to believe in.

Please expand and elaborate on the phrase "better morale compass".

What point were you trying to make Sergei? Yes, those regimes were bad, but having no religion doesn't mean you can't construct a moral system which works for the benefit of society and the species as a whole. Name a moral action that a religious person can do that an atheist can't?

You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. It can be created independently of religion. Do you think the Jews thought it was okay to steal and murder before they received the commandments? Of course they didn't, and they wouldn't have survived as a society if they did!

It doesn't contradict in any way at all. As I explained in post #94, a moral code for a stable society means it is a better environment for the survival of the species. This doesn't necessarily need a written law.

Because the teachings say if you break them you should be killed. 1) Have you ever worked on a Sunday? If yes, then the Bible says you should die. 2) Do you think those that commit adultery should be killed? 3) Have you ever disobeyed you parents? If yes, then the Bible says you should be killed 4) Is coveting your neighbours goods really one of the worst things you can do? If anything it is helpful as aspirations gives you goals to aim for to better yourself. That is why I don't think they are good morals to live by. You don't need religion as a base of a morality. What human society needs to pass on its genes and survive as a species is a good basis for a moral code. For society to work and be stable you can't have people murdering or stealing. Not obeying your parents, working on a Sunday or committing adultery however aren't and shouldn't be crimes and certainly not with the punishment of death.

The commandments are meant to be the direct word of God. Therefore they are timeless. 1) If the morals of the commandments can change and evolve over time by humans, then why did we need God to tell us if we can just change them at a later date? 2) Do you think the Jews thought murder was okay before Moses and the commandments? 3) How do you think they survived as a society, before Moses if it was acceptable to murder and steal? 4) God is very condescending thinking we needed to be told. Those he did tell were a tiny % of the world's population, why didn't he use his powers to tell everyone at once? The message wouldn't reach Australia for example for over 2,000 years.

That may be the case but it is only picking and choosing which bits from the Bible we like and ignoring the bits we don't even though the commandments are meant to be the direct word of God. The Bible says those that commit adultery should be killed. Is that law in the UK? No. In any case...we couldn't survive as a species if as a society we accepted murder to be "okay". Thus for us to pass on genes we need a stable society for our children to grow up in and thus it makes sense to outlaw murder, theft etc etc.

But the teachings you think are good are the shortened versions. They leave out the punishments of death. You don't need religion to come up with good morals, it can be done independently and without the punishment of death thrown in. 1) Name one moral action a religious person can do that I as an atheist can't? 2) Name a wicked action than is attributable only a religious faith?

Modern man has existed for roughly 100,000 years. God watches man for roughly 98,000 years and then decides the best way to tell them how to behave is to tell Moses in a largely illiterate part of the bronze age Middle East of his commandments. Communication at the time was poor and the commandments didn't reach China for over 1,000 years, didn't reach the Americas until the 15th Century and didn't reach Australia until the 18th Century etc. God really is crap and inept at his job if he thought that was the best way to do it! It is more easily explained by accepting the Judeo-Christian scripture are completely man-made like all the other thousands of religions throughout history.