KeenObserver
Member
Sad thing is that the spotter was his father
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
BODY BUILDER DIES SQUATTING 450 WITH SPOTTER.
- Thread starter laclark89
- Start date
Sad thing is that the spotter was his father
LOL!!! That's because they involve W O R K !!
Oh shit! Imagine having to live with this on his soul.............And I'm an atheist.
That’s number 2 so i ain’t mad at you
TestTrenPrimo
Subscriber
This is not true
BigTomJ
Well-known Member
No it wasn't. It was the owner/head "trainer" for the gym
KeenObserver
Member
Ah. Some fucky article said it was his dad. Can't trust shit these days lol.
This was the spotters fault in not being prepared to help the lifter bail. It wasn't a instant injury. Didn't have to happen. But safety bars also would have fixed it.
Agree. about a million things could have fixed it.
Some goof standing behind a squatter who has any significant portion of weight on their back isn't going to do anything in most cases but fuck shit up for the lifter and often for themselves as well.
If a lifter isn't comfortable dropping bars then they damn well better be squatting in a rack with safeties.
Mono-lift are awesome but pretty rare.
Plain old safeties are common as fuck though.
It reminds me of all the WILDLY dangerous idiot lifting "advice" I heard in the military.
Maybe 2% of the soldiers lifting in the gym had even a mild clue what they were doing. I saw "back spots" like this for squats and even for the fucking deadlift!
Iamnatty
Well-known Member
How can you look at the complexity of the human body and the world we live in and not see evidence for a creator. Mabey your ignoring the evidence around you
Gordon_of_Tralles
New Member
It's very easy if you understand biology and how evolution jury rigs previous body plans.
I mean, the human body shows clear jury-rigging, not design, which is why choking is easy, why knees give out, why a lot of us have to get our wisdom teeth pulled, why childbirth is a dangerous affair (not as bad as hyenas, though), and why we have blind spots (as opposed to octopus eyes, which do not). That's just off the top of my head.
It's not just humans, btw, animals are poorly designed as well. Look at the babirusa. You can't tell me that this was a well thought out animal, what with its tusks that grow long enough to pierce its brain and kill it. I could go on, of course, but the idea that nature is well designed boggles the mind.
Or are you thinking about things like Glyptapanteles?
"the wasps of the genus Glyptapanteles, whose females inject their eggs into living caterpillars. Once inside, the larvae mature, feeding on the caterpillar’s body fluids before gnawing through its skin en masse and emerging into the light of day. And despite the trauma, not only does the caterpillar survive---initially at least---but the larvae proceed to mind-control it, turning their host into a bodyguard that protects them as they spin their cocoons and finish maturing. Then, finally, the caterpillar starves to death, but only after the tiny wasps emerge from their cocoons and fly away."
What kind of loving God would create that?
Theists bore the shit out of me anymore. If complexity of the human body is "evidence " of a sky daddy, then by believers' own belief system's definition, there's no need for something called "faith." But then again, in the words of Dr. Boghossian, faith is pretending to know things you really don't know. And , I assume you are a Xtian, which of the over 44,000 independent, officially recognized denominations are you a member of, claiming you are the right kind of Xtian? Which one is correct? Which ones aren't? You are almost as much of an atheist as I am, the only difference is that I believe in one less god than you do. As a friend of mine used to say, "and the bible says fuck my ass,"
Oh man are we turning this thread to spirituality and religion?
Apparently, and I didn't start this shit, people need to take their religious shit and shove it.
Iamnatty
Well-known Member
You look at and iPhone and you don't say "that must have evolved out of nothing " . Then look at something more complex then and a phone like the human body and all its functions and and say " oh yea that just evolved out of nothing " its actually quite silly.
Gordon_of_Tralles
New Member
This is the old watchmaker argument which was refuted by Hume even prior to Darwin.
Let me ask you this - can a phone pass on its genetic information? Further, the problem with design is that it's not a proper scientific theory - that is to say, there is no mechanism, so what you're advocating for is 'magic'. Which is fine, you can believe in whatever magic you want, but don't pretend that you have some intellectual position that the rest of us are ignoring.
I'm not trying to be mean, but you don't seem to have an understanding of biological evolution.
Also, I'll take your lack of response as a concession that those examples were indeed of poor design and that the Glyptapanteles does pose a problem for theists.
NO, you just sound like a fucking idiot. Go suck off your jesus, dumb fuck.
Rido
Subscriber
The watchmaker argument was Deism, which I am.
Set things into motion and let it start ticking. No interference
The saying is for something to be created, these has to be a creator.
I dont follow miracles, unsure if there is an afterlife. Nor do I care.
No formal organization, nothing.
Just be a good person. Don't do things to people that you wouldn't want to happen to yourself
At the end of the day, we shouldn't care what people believe in. Just don't be a piece of shit.
Gordon_of_Tralles
New Member
The watchmaker argument could be deistic or theistic, it's about design. I think you are referring to a cosmological argument or perhaps a cosmological version of the argument OR perhaps I'm confused about things - it's been a while since I read Hume or Paley.
The created/creator argument, IMO, begs the question and doesn't hold for the origin of existence. Personally, I think it follows that if something can come from nothing then it necessarily has to be uncaused, since there is nothing for an agent to act upon. Further, no time or space to do the acting. That aside, I don't hold to the presentism (the ontological assumption of most cosmologies).
ALL of that aside, I agree with your general position and tone - I have no problem with deism or with live and let live. I just don't find deism particularly compelling - I could be wrong about what I think I know about reality, so I don't think you're irrational for holding your views.
Rido
Subscriber
*Insert like*
