Nathan Bond's TART Remarks

Religion: Respect? Ridicule!

Jesus owns Kaká?

with 11 comments

The “Son of Man” is a sports fan!?

Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite is arguably the best football player on earth.

And he thinks he belongs to Jesus.

He doesn’t.

He belongs to AC Milan and is rumoured soon to be owned by Manchester City and a consortium bankrolled by Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family with a personal fortune estimated at $22 billion. (I suspect that the good Sheikh is more of a Mohammad fan than a Jesus supporter, meaning that Kaká might prefer JC, but he may soon be contracted to Mo’s acolyte.) He will doubtlessly belong to some other billionaire sports boss in future.

I think it is hilarious that sport stars “believe”. In the fickle milieu and fiscal driven reality of international sport one has to be fucking cuckoo to think that some god sometimes favours this and then that team. Olympic and World Cup Gold is a function, more often than not, of hard cash… a point confirmed by Manchester City’s changing fortunes (if ya’all will excuse the crude calembour; this equivoque; this double entendre) since the introduction of his royal highness’s pelf.

Jissis. It’s laughable. To belong to Jesus F Christ. Or to Shiva H Vishnu.

How about sporting a T-shirt with this jewel from Homer Simpson, Bart’s dad and the originator of the Corollary to Pascal’s Wager*: Jesus, Allah, Buddha. I love you all! Now that’s hedgin’ ya’ bets!

And it may just indicate to kids (apparently allus on the lookout for role models) that is it useless to pray and wear some idiot T-shirt. Winnin’ is mostly up to the managers of the money and the team. And a decent stroke of luck – the result of hard work, very hard work.

* Pascal’s Wager: Wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Homer’s Corollary: Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.



Written by Nathan Bond

January 17, 2009 at 16:25

Posted in Religion must go!

Tagged with

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. How do you know that?


    September 24, 2015 at 15:54

  2. l dont wanna judge anyone or point fingers on others but what l know ricardo kaka belong to jesus the one who savio him on the cros of calivary..

    jonathan maengo

    August 10, 2015 at 00:01

  3. Con-tester, ek het geen verskonings vir God gesoek nie en wonder waar kom jy daaraan.

    Hans Matthysen

    March 12, 2009 at 23:02

  4. I’m sure this little “bad stuff equals god’s absence” puff piece will fill the hearts of those who share a taste for pedagoguery with smug contentment. There are a few obvious problems. Firstly, the bible describes satan, the alleged supreme malefactor, together with his cohorts as a band of fallen angels, not as the absence of god, so the “absence of” analogy doesn’t even accord with the fundamentals of religious dogma. Dogma and the bible itself say that evil properly exists as a separate entity, and so this “absence of” thesis is a big swindle.

    Secondly, is a natural disaster like a tsunami that wipes out a large number of people in one fell swoop also the absence of god? Are the thirty to forty million human foetuses who are miscarried annually also the absence of god? Are the Aids orphans and droughts and crop failures affecting millions also the absence of god? Is the genocide and large-scale slaughter of people also the absence of god even when the victims are devout and committed believers? Assuming this god to exist purely for the argument’s sake, one must conclude that if these things are as they are owing to an absence of this god then this god is clearly a shirker and possibly a malingerer, too. If not, this god is either powerless or purposely evil, possibly both.

    Thirdly, the analogy relies on a deeply naïve conception of physics. For example, there is no difficulty in reversing the heat/coldness situation to claim that heat is merely the absence of coolth without substantively affecting the physics – in fact, the air-conditioning industry often does just that for reasons of convenience. This means that one could just as well reason that the presence of good is merely the absence of satan, not the presence of god. Moreover, the mechanisms of many physical phenomena are well understood. Such understanding allows us to establish reliable protocols and procedures for detecting the presence or absence of various things. We have no reliable criteria of such a kind to apply to god (or satan), which means that “good” or “bad” can be whatever suits someone’s momentary perceptions because god’s presence or absence cannot be ascertained.

    Finally, direct sensory perception of a phenomenon is hardly necessary when a reliably facsimile is available whose origin is causally bound to that phenomenon. To illustrate: the presence of the professor’s brain can reliably and repeatably be confirmed through an MRI scan or similar. An EEG will also do the trick, and several other techniques, e.g. the Turing Test, can be applied that will produce results in direct conflict with the “no-brained-professor” hypothesis. The operative concept here is that of scientifically compelling evidence. There is none such in support of any kind of omni-everything personal god, and much evidence that speaks against it. Therefore, to draw parallels between physical phenomena that are well understood like heat, light and electromagnetism, and some amorphous, indefinable, ineffable hypothetical deity is to overstep the line of plausibility.

    Oh, and biological evolution, including speciation events (and a few more here), has actually been observed. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts and to tell lies.


    March 11, 2009 at 17:38

  5. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor demons, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord…

    A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

    “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”

    “Yes sir,” the student says.

    “So you believe in God?”


    “Is God good?”

    “Sure! God’s good.”

    “Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”


    “Are you good or evil?”

    “The Bible says I’m evil.”

    The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”

    “Yes sir, I would.”

    “So you’re good…!”

    “I wouldn’t say that.”

    “But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”

    The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”

    The student remains silent.

    “No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

    “Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”

    “Er…yes,” the student says.

    “Is Satan good?”

    The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”

    “Then where does Satan come from?”

    The student falters. “From God”

    “That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”

    “Yes, sir.”

    “Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”


    “So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”

    Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”

    The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”

    “So who created them?”

    The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”

    The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”

    The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”

    “No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”

    “Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”

    “No, sir, I have not.”

    “Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have
    you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”

    “No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”

    “Yet you still believe in him?”


    “According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”

    “Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”

    “Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
    The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”

    “Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”

    “And is there such a thing as cold?”

    “Yes, son, there’s cold too.”

    “No sir, there isn’t.”

    The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

    “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”

    “Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”

    Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,
    sounding like a hammer.

    “What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”

    “Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”

    “You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”

    “In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”

    The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”

    “Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”

    The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”

    “You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”

    “It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”

    “Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”

    “If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”

    “Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”

    The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

    “Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”

    The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

    “To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”

    The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?”

    The class breaks out into laughter.

    “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”

    “So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”

    Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

    Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”

    “Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”

    Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

    To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

    The professor sat down.

    If you’re still wondering why Christians stay true to God in hard times and still fail (e.g. Losing a cricket match), it does not go unnoticed, for God has a plan and because you stayed true to Him he will reward you in this life or in heaven.
    Luke 6:20-22
    20Looking at his disciples, he said:
    “Blessed are you who are poor,
    for yours is the kingdom of God.
    21Blessed are you who hunger now,
    for you will be satisfied.
    Blessed are you who weep now,
    for you will laugh.
    22Blessed are you when men hate you,
    when they exclude you and insult you
    and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man


    March 9, 2009 at 15:26

  6. En, Hans Matthysen, jou verskonings vir jou god raak al hoe meer dwaas.


    February 27, 2009 at 08:52

  7. AB se blydskap laat hom onmiddelik aan God dink en nou wat is fout daarmee. Om aan Christus Jesus te behoort is iets wat julle nie verstaan nie. Julle behoort seker net aan julle self. Con-tester, jy kan werklik ‘n klomp twak uit dink, net omdat party mense hulle blydskap met God, in dankbaarheid verbind.

    Hans Matthysen

    February 26, 2009 at 21:58

  8. Most about Brazilian Football in

    Includ a interview with Kaká.

    Hernanes, a new best player FIFA.

    The home at Kaká, Luis Fabiano, Diego Lugano and others brazilian players.

    Fabiano de Souza

    February 23, 2009 at 03:32

  9. Funny, though, how sporting performance is independent of religious conviction. After all, Pakistan’s cricket team occasionally beats good Christian or Hindu teams. Funnier still is how sporting performance conforms to statistical laws.

    Oh, but wait! This god made those statistical laws and works in mysterious ways that curiously abide by those selfsame laws. So all sporting outcomes are in any case perforce arbitrary and beyond the control of anything but Kismet.



    January 21, 2009 at 22:34

  10. Yeah, these sport-religion freaks get to me, too. Nowadays there’s a few on most teams. So both pray for victory and both give thanks when they win. Why don’t they cuss and blame when this almighty god lets them down, f-godssake? Sue him! I mean he’s omnipotent, so he COULD have let you win. He’s obviously just messing you around!

    Or why don’t they thank almighty god for shoving a carrot up Ponting’s arse this test, o lord?
    Or say Tell Ponting he can pray to You as much as he likes but you’ll always favour me, o lord.


    January 21, 2009 at 21:03

  11. Hey, ek kan nie meer saamstem nie! Ek is ‘n groot krieketfan, maar die nonsens van AB de Villiers wat sielvol na die hemel kyk na sy 100 en dan nog die jirre bedank agterna was vir my net te veel. Ek wonder wat doen hy as hy (so baie kere) uit is vir 0? Sit hy dan die blaam waar hy gewoonlik die glory sit??? Aaah … Die groot fokop begin dan!

    Irma Kroeze

    January 20, 2009 at 12:08

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: